Beck vs. O’Reilly: Westboro Baptist Church Case
- Posted on October 9, 2010 at 11:33am by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 692 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 662 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 339 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 227 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 236 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 227 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (100)
Marine Recon Dad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:01pmAs hard as it is for me to say it, I have to stand by the 1st Ammendment and state they have the right to protest, as dispicable as it is. If we step in and start to legislate what and where things can and can’t be said, in place of letting common sense and morality rule, we are just giving more of our rights over to the Government.
But all that said – as a parent of a Marine serving overseas, I will reserve the right at anytime to take a baseball bat to anyone that might disrupt a memorial service I attend, and call it my 1st Ammendment right …….. not much of a difference between a verbal and physical assualt, is there?
Report Post »Marianne
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:33pmFirst Amendment Rights trump the hateful, vial things they are saying.
No one wants them to say the things they are saying. But they have the right to say it – no matter how vial.
Remember when they burned the flag during Vietnam. Same thing is happening here.
If they precipitate a reduction in our freedoms either in the courts or thru some law, they will have won.
I vote for setting up some organization to track their protests or at least make ourselves available to the families of our military and gather people to stand between the protesters and any family putting their loved one to rest. We could stand with our backs to the protesters, don’t respond to them or their signs or their songs. Just block them and quietly, respectfully show support for the families
Report Post »Spero
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:33pmI think O’Riley makes a good point about libel against an individual private citizen. Beck is right about the protesters. They have aright to speak their mind regardless of how despicable the content spewing from their mouth. However, in my opinion, where they crossed the line is when they sent mailers out with the soldier’s name on it as specific target for their hatred. That is libel and we are to protected from that type of behavior regardless of the circumstances.
That is why it is so important that we conduct ourselves with honor. We respect and honor people, but their ideals, theories, and principles are fair game and need to be seen for the fallacies that they are. Individuals are not their ideas and ideas are not the individual.
Report Post »Pelicans View
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:31pmSometimes, we cannot rely on the courts to fix our problems. They must be faced personnally. This one is easy. 1) Obtain the auto license tags of the offending Westboro members either from a church meeting or from one of their public gatherings. 2) For a very nominal fee (about $4.00 each on the internet) obtain the home addresses and work locations of the membership. 3) Hire the unemployed at minimum wage to picket the homes and work places of each offending Westboro member for at least 4 hours per day with despicable signs that disparage their character. Encourage your employees to be noisy. Oh, and if the local obituaries happen to reveal the tragic demise of of a Westboro member or family member, be sure to send your employees (for an incentive bonus) to demonstrate their vocal “support.” Within one week, and I’ll bet for less than $1000, this problem is permanently fixed. Nothing will impresses these sick bastards more than a healthy dose of their own medicine, and there is no better way to bring the lesson home than to exercise the first ammendment as the Westboro Baptists believe it was intended. This remedy can be repeated as required, but I doubt it will ever be necessary.
Report Post »tierrah
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:04pmPelican, I would love to see this happen; BUT, I think that the publicity that probably would ensue is just what the bad guys want! Notoriety!! So with those two thoughts in mind, I think the best way is to HIDE them so they don’t get noticed … they will go away if never seen nor heard, IMHO.
Report Post »Mattman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:20pmThink about it folks. There is one reason and one reason only our Constitution guarantees our right to free speech. And, it is NOT to assure our right to AGREEABLE speech. The right to free speech has value and meaning only in the context of DISagreeable speech. This is why free speech is paramount to the electorate’s care and feeding of a thriving and vibrant Republic and the social fabric of those governed. Without it tyranny rules and the individual is no more.
Report Post »Tony Nagy
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:16pmOk…. I have to give my opionion on this topic… I will tell you I‘m CANADIAN and like to give an ’outsiders’ point of view, if you let me?…. I say, turn the tables on the protesters…. you know what I mean !!….. Go to thier turf, call out thier name and tell them to ‘GET OUT OF YOUR U.S.A’… I‘m not even American and I’m disgusted they are allowed to do this, during such a sad moment in a family’s history. I understand about freedom of speech, but where is thier respect and decency?? I say find the ‘dirt’ on those protesters, and use the freedom of speech against them…. remember there are more of us who show respect and decency than there are of them> PinHeads.
Report Post »ps: I‘d love to create a Facebook Group called ’Our Pinheads’…. and you don’t want your picture in that group for “THE WORLD TO SEE”….
Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:21pmTony we love Canadians here especially if they take the iniative to have a similar movement to the Tea Party. (grin)
Yes, we have lost a sense of propriety and decency in many ways.
Report Post »Tony Nagy
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 3:38pmThank-you for your kind words. I’m very happy and satisfied with our Prime Minister, Mr. Steven Harper, I think Mr. Harper has done a fantastic job for us, so I’ll keep suporting him, Canada is so huge and a ‘Tea Party’ like movement here at this time is to give our votes to the ‘Conservative Party’. I’m afraid though, the Liberals and NDP(New Democratic Party)’ have and are doing more and more damage to our country, by socialism. Anyway, just my thoughts as a Canadian looking south over the unguarded fence. I‘m very sad because I see a ’Great Nation> USA’ being torn apart from the inside, by unpatriotic citizens(Non), of which I see your President as their leader.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:14pmGood to be able to see two men with very different personalities but essentially both believe in small govt .. be able to dialogue in good humor, each giving ground when the other made a sound argument. This is the right type of compromise we should face in America. That’s why both the DP and GOP must be targeted for change.
Report Post »Zcat
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:03pmOff Topic….This will really tick you even more!!!
Senate Office to Host Health Fair for Well-Covered Staffers
As millions of hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet, Senate staffers will participate next week in a two-day orgy of back massages, organic food tastings and milk mustache photos.
It’s all part of a health fair for the staffers, who enjoy some of the best health care in the country.
Not only will they get health screenings, they’ll also find out if their iPods are too loud.
Neither the Senate’s Education and Training Office nor the Senate sergeant-at-arms, which oversees the office, would say which vendors are providing the services or how much the health fair will cost taxpayers.
But there will be no shortage of vendors providing screenings for visual acuity, chiropractic health, bone density, glaucoma, PSA levels, cholesterol levels and hearing.
The Senate staffers also will be treated to seated massages, herbal teas, polarity therapy, low-fat cheese samples and organic foods. A pharmacist and health coach will be available to speak to fairgoers about their medications, nutrition and healthy lifestyle questions.
Fairgoers can test themselves with brain games and bring their MP3 players to be tested for decibel levels.
The fair, to be held on Thursday and Friday, is not uncommon among federal agencies, a senior Senate aide told FoxNews.com. Fairs of this sort are held every year.
An aide in the sergeant-at-arms office told FoxNews.com in an e-mail that the fair is open to all Senate staff, and there is no fee to attend. The costs to the office, the aide said, are “minimum.”
But based on their available health care benefits, Senate staffers don’t appear to be in dire need of a health fair.
While the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) offers different types of plans, including PPOs , HMOs and high deductible plans, all include certain benefits such as hospital care, surgical care, inpatient and outpatient care, mental health coverage, substance abuse care and prescription drug coverage.
Senate staffers enrolled in the program don’t have waiting periods or coverage limitations on pre-existing conditions.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/senate-office-host-health-fair-covered-staffers/
Report Post »Jeffriesboys
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:55pmI hate it, but I have to agree with Beck. If no one is getting physically hurt, then the speech has to be protected. If you open the door, then someday, the government can decide that the gospel is hate speech. I think that the idea of surrounding the families of the soldiers is a great idea. Put such a great wall of people between them and these horrible people that they never even know they are there.
Report Post »kerig
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:02pmSomeone does not have to get physically hurt for the aggressor to be held liable in court. Slander and Libel are 2 forms of speech that aren’t considered protected and are vigorously prosecuted. Free speech can not be an absolute right, it must come with with personal responsibility and a justice system willing to uphold the truth.
I agree that “hate speech” legislation is something that the people of America MUST reject at all cost, because it will lead to government control of vocabulary.
Double plus ungood.
Report Post »kerig
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:49pmWhile I support the right to free speech, it must come with the price tag of personal responsibility.
They have the absolute right to say virtually whatever they want without criminal reprisal. However, free speech is far more restrictive in the civil court system. If they can show targeted harassment, then they can be held civilly liable for their actions.
Personally, I suspect the Supreme Court will ultimately side with the WBC in this case. The best way to get them off the scene is to secure injunctions against them before a funeral. Not the a great solution, but I’m sure one or two enterprising lawyers could make a niche market helping the families to secure them.
Report Post »Rita
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:48pmThe Westboro clan are living in a state of mental hell that they can’t excape. They’re already being punished with hate filled thoughts and distain for others so their is justice afterall for these people. It’s too bad these people are allowed to breed.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:48pmHate speech is just as protected as political, religious, or any other speech. These “hate crime” laws are un-American, and should all be thrown out an unconstitutional. Calling them names is pretty childish, they have every right to believe gays aren’t good for society, the evidence certainly is on their side showing that they aren’t, but that doesn’t matter to the left, just as they are willing to throw out the constitution when it doesn’t suit them.
Report Post »kerig
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:55pmI agree, I can’t fathom why any crime is “worse” because of perceived bigotry.
Murder is murder. It is no more or less murder because of bigotry. It implies that there is some sort of “tiered” system that holds one life, race or lifestyle higher than another. That is patently unconstitutional. Equal application of the law is necessary to a free society.
Report Post »tsosumi
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 6:57pmmurder can be either justified or not and there are several degrees not to exclude manslaughter which has several degrees as well, and lets not forget homicide.
Please go review originalism and the intent of the founding fathers regarding freedom of speech. Take in the context of dueling being a part of society at that time as well and what duels were fought for.
Also, consider that in greek a commandment reads Thou Shall Not Murder. Not though shalt not kill. Some generations have been known to misinterpret the rules of generations past.
knowledge is power. please don’t fight the power.
Report Post »Jezreel
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:44pmThey are not followers of Jesus. They are unbelievers who are misled by a hireling. The law of God surpasses the law of man. They are being “in the flesh” and using the law of man to get recognition and draw attention to their selves and they do not glorify Jesus at all. They glorify the flesh and sin. The law of Christ is the law of love, “love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you and overcome evil with good”. These religeous people and the typical sterotype of group of people who turn people away from God instead of drawing people to Him. They do the work of Satan and are deceived that they are doing God’s work. Judgement start first at the house of God and at us. I pray that God would bring judgment upon their hateful actions. If their are any in that group that are his and are just misled, God will chasten them because every son he loves, he chastens. If God does not chasten them and bring them to repentance, that is because they are not his. They are the children of the wicked one.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:42pmThere already are laws. There are harrassment laws, public nuissance laws, disturbing the peace, etc.
The people attending these funerals were not public officials that could make any policy changes. Assembling and protesting there served no purpose but to denegrate and enrage people. The freedom of speech protected under the first ammendment is political speech. There is nothing protected about harrassing private citizens.
Report Post »Hangtimes
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:42pm1st Amendment must be protected.. it’s not there to settle arguments, it‘s there to promote debate and strengthen the individual in contrast to the ’authorities’; i.e; ‘the state’.
Westboro Church is using ‘protected speech’ to insult and denigrate individuals.. private citizens. Not the state or public persons.
There is a difference.. hopefully, the court will define that.
Report Post »kerig
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:07pmInteresting.
When does one cross from and “individual” to a “public figure”? Any law that would delineate between the 2 must define it, otherwise it becomes a morale gray area that is left up to judges to determine. Then, much like current hate crime legislation, it will be applied unevenly based on a judges own moral compass and political leanings.
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:41pmBeck is wrong about the fire incident.
What Bill proposed was not like Obamacare.
What Beck explained was not “fire insurance.” Fire insurance is not designed to keep your house from burning down, but to replace it if it does burn down.
Beck fails to understand that there are far more rational alternatives, alternatives which are not socialist or “liberal,” and which are effectively applied in surrounding municipalities and around the country.
The point is that the option which was offered ($75 fee), is not even a rational solution to offer in situations like this.
Love ya, Beck, even more than I love Bill, but you need to think this one through.
BTW, I spent 16 years in public safety, six of them at the fire dept. I can assure you that watching a house burn down for lack of a fee is essentially malpractice, and suggesting that this was the right thing to do is akin to saying it’s OK to deny police protection to the family of a man who is delinquent on his taxes.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:19pmGreat to see someone who loves Glenn but can respectfully disagree. Would you feel differently if the contract said by public vote that the firemen should stop the fire but charge the “free loaders: ( a term used in Economics) to pay FULL cost for the service? Just a guesstimate from your expereince as a fireman. what would likely be the range of reimbursement?
Report Post »free2bme1961
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:21pmI am so glad you addressed this issue. I wanted to, but I saw your post, and it appears you spoke eloquently on this issue.Thanks for speaking my mind also. ;))
Report Post »p8triot
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:44pmI like the way you think. I’m not going to pay my taxes any more. The neighboring community can pay for my services until I need to utilize a particular one.
For example, I don’t have any kids in school. I won’t pay for schools until I have a kid in one. Plus, buses are bad for the environment. Except, there isn’t a school across the street from my house. And I don’t want to bus my kid to the neighboring community to go to school. Will you pay to build a school in front of my house? Like I said, I’ll pay for that service later when I need it. Thanks!
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:46pmContrarian Thinker…that would be one good alternative, and thanks.
There are other good ideas as well, but what I wanted to point out was that it appeared this municipality made a calculated effort to implement the absolute worst solution they could think up.
As far as determining reasonable reimbursement…I think that might be an entirely new and large discussion, but my primitive and reactionary answer is to accept what insurance might pay the fire dept.
I’d point out that I have developed the opinion that as soon as the fire dept starts operating as a fee-for-service, then they should be willing to start facing some criticism every time they fail to perform…i.e. civil lawsuits for a failure to rescue (that’s just one example). I am inclined to think that if a fire dept. charges someone a large fee, then they need to be effective. It wouldn’t make sense to see them pour water on a structure that ultimately burns to the ground (a total loss), and then still bill the homeowner. It would be like hiring an exterminator who left your house full of pests, but still sent you a bill.
Additionally, they should also be willing to face competition, and be willing to operate efficiently. For example, one of the fire dept’s I worked for purchased a $350k rescue truck with redundant equipment and enough gadgets to launch a space shuttle (yes, I recognize my hyperbole). The problem with this is that the dept. conducted about one “rescue” per month, and could’ve done a great job with a far more affordable apparatus.
That rescue won a lot of prizes though, and I think it sustained more damage attending parades than it did saving people.
Just my opinion.
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:58pmDear P8t…from the tone of your post, you mistakenly believe that I am proposing that fire services be offered for free.
I didn’t propose that.
I merely pointed out that the solution they offered was absolutely the worst one available.
You‘re school analogy doesn’t stick or apply, unless you know of some kids that have been pulled out of school or kicked off the bus because their parents didn’t pay the “fee.”
BTW, I happen to believe that education and transportation is the responsibility of the parents. Maybe the gov‘t feels an obligation to provide these services since it’s ‘compulsory,’ but I can do a much better job myself…just as my parents did.
I also happen to point out that the best services we received are those services which are “fee” supported, meaning “fee for service.” As soon as it becomes a ‘subscription’ or a tax or starts to look like insurance, the quality declines remarkably.
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:13pmP8triot…you completely misunderstood.
Seriously….
Report Post »p8triot
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 3:09pmThe only one confused is you.
They had two options. Build and pay for a fire dept. Or contract service from a local community. Since they did not want to pay for their own service (too expensive) they decided to contract that service. The community voted on that decision. As an opt in decision, if you paid the fee you get the service. If you didn’t pay the fee you get no service.
He expected them to come put out his fire even though he did not pay for the service. Look at it another way. If they didn’t want to pay for a fire department or any service, both houses would have burned.
So, take this to the next step. If no one pays the fee, and the neighboring community pays for their fire dept to respond, who will pay the fee in the future? NO ONE.
Preexisiting conditions and health insurance suffers the exact same problem. Glenn’s point was exactly that. No one will pay until they have to. The system can’t sustain itself unless the Govt takes over. That is exactly what we stand against.
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 8:48pmYou’ll have to be more specific; nothing confusing about what I’ve said.
BTW, I speak from years of working in public safety and the fire service, and I happen to know first hand that there are better ways to ‘do business’ and generate revenue…ideally in ways which will not alienate the fire dept.
Saying there are only “two options” indicates a failure to think outside the box, and shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about several other options that are available.
There is a valid third option which fire dept’s all across the country and in neighboring municipalities were able to figure out; extinguish all fires that they are requested for, and send a bill for their services to those who failed to pay the “fee.” It’s not rocket science, and it‘s a solution that doesn’t leave someone homeless because of $75 bucks.
I’d point out two immediate solutions, and the failure to pursue one of them shows at least a flavor of malpractice. Since they were able to determine immediately that he hadn’t payed, then they should’ve also been able to accept payment on the spot. Next, if they weren’t willing to fight the fire, they should have offered to call another dept who would be willing to fight the fire and bill the homeowner, especially since surrounding fire dept’s have stated that they operate on that system.
Standing there and watching his home burn down was ludicrous…it’s amazing that two brains put together came to the conclusion that it was appropriate.
Saying that “no one will pay until they have to” is not a problem descriptor; and it fails to acknowledge that we can build a better system where procrastinators and people who gamble on not paying the fee will then be responsible for the full cost of services and associated fees. Why would you “stand against” a system like that which actually might generate more revenue for the fire dept and results in an attempt extinguish all fires?
Report Post »Contrarian51
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 11:10pmThe only thing Glenn got wrong, at least in my opinion, was saying it is “fire insurance” while what he should have said was that it works “like fire insurance” in that you pay a smaller amount in advance to share/spread the risk among a larger group. If you don’t pay, you’re not in the game. Glenn was correct in comparing it to Obamacare, in which it will be cheaper for people to pay the fine (or “tax” as they’re now calling it in order to strengthen their court case) until they get sick and then buy actual insurance once they realize they need it AFTER they get sick or injured. It’s an insane concept. It‘s like being able to say you don’t want auto insurance and then being able to buy it for an accident you already had.
Glenn was absolutely correct in saying that if the fire department had put the fire out, then the lesson everyone would take from it is that there’s no point paying your fee until after you have a fire. The problem is that there then won’t be any money to fund a fire department in the first place.
Remember also that this neighborhood had previously not had any fire department response before coming up with this system. The offer was made: if you want to have a fire department respond when you call, pay $75 per year. If you don’t want to pay, don’t expect help. Presumably all parties to this contract were grownups. One person rolled the dice, they came up snake eyes, sorry but you knew it could happen.
I promise you it was a lot harder for the firemen to NOT fight this fire than it would have been to try and put it out.
Report Post »Contrarian51
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 11:20pmBack To Reality:
As to your third option of sending a bill for services after the fact, good luck getting paid. Someone who won’t pay $75 a year for fire protection is probably carrying a large deductible on their homeowner policy (presuming they have one) because it saves a little on the premium and then screams bloody murder about not being able to afford the high deductible after they’ve had the loss. Suddenly they’re supposed to conjure up several thousand dollars to pay for services from the fire department? Man, like I said, good luck with that.
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 12:11amIt’s not luck, it’s a process.
We got paid.
Of course people were reluctant to pay, but most of the deadbeats paid as soon as they received a “final notice, going to collections” letter, and most of the remaining deadbeats paid after we called our collections provider and they received notice of that, and I’d point out that it helps being a county public safety agency…the sheriff tended to be very accomodating…but I‘d point out that we didn’t “pursue” the customer, we “collaborated” with them to help them pursue the process of billing insurance and setting up a payment plan. It’s important to treat customers like customers…especially in their time of need.
And sometimes we simply ended up with nothing…but we were paid most of the time, and we never refused to fight fire, and we always had plenty of income.
In fact, we would never even think of implementing a fee program such as S. Fulton did because it would cut deeply into our revenue.
And refusing to fight a fire because of a fee would seriously damage our influence in the community; they would likely abandon us for our annual fundraising campaign, and they would probably refuse to rent our facilities for their social events.
And Glenn got it wrong in failing to understand that better processes should’ve been in place; it’s too easy to just say “he didn’t pay, therefore his house burned.” Believing that this is an appropriate arrangement for a municipality to even make for the purpose of delivering ESSENTIAL public safety is just horribly flawed.
So flawed, in fact, I bet we will never hear of another dept refusing to fight a fire again…for any reason. I seriously doubt that S. Fulton is going to continue operations “as is” without making dramatic changes in their policy, and I’ll bet that it includes some arrangement where non-payers are sent a big fat bill.
They may even abandon the fee program completely.
Glenn Beck get’s it right most of the time…but not this time.
Report Post »JayCee
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:41pmThey are just as, but no more vile than King Samir Shabazz of the NBP espousing “You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”
To me it is all hate speech.
Report Post »Only1King
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:40pmhow come this so called church still have it’s tax exempt status
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:39pmAnyone know of a site that tells where these “Christians?” are going to protest? There’s enough of us so that We Can Surround Them . ( literally)
Sailor
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:43pmThis is actually a good idea. Shielding those who are objects of their spewing hate would be a worthy project for TRUE Christians.
Report Post »Miss_E
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:01pmThere is a Harley Davidson motorcycle club that usually meets the church members they park peacefully on the street between the protesters & the funeral. When the protesters start in the bike club start up the bikes & drowned out what is being shouted.
Funerals should be considered scared & banned from public protest. Especially our fallen heros.
Report Post »JayCee
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:25pmThey don’t just protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers.
They even showed up here in OKC at the Lady Gaga concert:
http://www.metrostarnews.com/Lady-Gaga-followed-by-Phelps-flock.html
Report Post »forgetz_alot
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:29pmpartiotguard.org … it will not tell you when the church is planning protests, but will tell you when a soldier’s funeral will be in your state so you can go join them in a flag line to block potential protesters. We are mostly bikers, but it is not necessary to have a motorcycle. We attend soldier’s funerals when the family requests our services. We are non-violent, so don’t come with intentions of violence.
Report Post »WUNK
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:31pmYou’d only have to do it once…then they’d stop
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:00pmForgetz
Thanks
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:59pmCheck with the Patriot Guards website. They will provide an honor guard for the family of any family laying to rest a military member that they suspect will be targeted by the Westboro Bastards. There is no requirement (except maybe having a bike).
Report Post »I understand that one of their techniques for stifling the Bastards is to park their bikes between the funeral party and the Bastards with exhaust pipes aimed at them. If the Bastards get too obnoxious, the bike are cranked and drown out the feeble cries of these useless morons. Otherwise, the Guards serve as a way to keep the Bastards far enough away…they form a line and then do an about-face on the Bastards, showing nothing but their colors and contempt to them.
C. Schwehr
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 3:01pmSailor: if you’re interested, google the Patriot Guards…the national organization is based out of Ohio. I believe if you just google Ohio Patriot Guards you’ll find it.
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:24pmMISS E comments, “There is a Harley Davidson motorcycle club….”
I admire and respect those bikers. Those girls and boys are chasing after The Good.
MISS E closes, “Funerals should be considered scared & banned from public protest.”
No, we cannot do this. This would violate our constitutional guarantees. This is to be qualified.
If protesters are on private property, yes, this could be unlawful and police action could be taken. If protesters are on public land, we cannot take any action. An exception would be an example of a local ordinance requiring a permit for assembly. This is reasonable.
As much as we loath those crazy Christians, we must fiercely defend their right to assemble and protest, while done so legally and peacefully. This is their right to free speech which is the most precious right we Americans enjoy.
Contrasting, this offended mourning family does have a right to sue for personal injury and this injury is very clear. Best action is to uphold the lower court ruling in favor of this family, and leave our right to free speech alone.
As much as this angers us, those Christians zealots to have a right to lawfully protest. Should we take away this right, we also take away our right to free speech. This will lead to tyranny. This will destroy our America.
MISS E, have you practicing as mares do? We have a contest coming up. Best be ready.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
Miss_E
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:36pmEvil simple minded bigots. I’m sure this is who the media & elitist thinks makes up the tea party.
Report Post »moelarrycurly
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:36pmits always a shame when people squander their God given right to free speech. just remember, these people may say inflammatory or crazy things. But hey, the left wingers do to (see for yourself at zombietime.com). They are just not publicized the way these idiots are. They are relying on any consensus among the people to limit the practice of free speech. Its not that big of a deal-except it would require an amendment to the Constitution. and do we really want to do that? How bout this…I go down with a few friends of mine-we kick the crap out of them so that they think twice about hurting someone. Sure-I’ll have to spend time in the clink. – But I’ll do it. And just think of how many millions of dollars the tax payer would save by not going to court to change the Constitution. Just post my bail guys! It might also show everyone how ridiculous ‘hate crime’ legislation is. They could charge me with a hate crime! My defense would be that they made me hate em…ok-might not work…Bad attempt at humor-wish me luck next time…
Report Post »american beauty
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:35pmI believe this action has crossed the line of free speech. I hope that the facts will prove that this church has cross that line and is made to pay. I also believe that there is no connection to the will of God and this church. If they were lead by God they would denouce all violence and not wish harm to anyone. They are sympathizer to terror.
Report Post »Independent Tess
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:35pmSeems like this would fall under that idea of targeted harassment. It is also hate speech if ever I heard it. What a despicable bunch of people.
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 1:47amClose their church for good.
Report Post »2
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:29pmI think the 1st Amendment sould always win unless someone could get hurt.
I ALSO THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO KICK THEIR ASS & NOT GET IN TROUBLE.
Report Post »Bunk
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:22pmI fully support their RIGHT to say the nasty things they say. BUT….their should be a law regarding where they can say those things. Seem to me that cemeteries should be considered sacred ground and carry some sort of special dispensation.
Report Post »1776
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:31pmI agree.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 3:13pmWhile I agree with your concept, it would lead to things like “free speech zones”, which some colleges already have. And a few of them had problems because if a student expressed an opinion that was contrary to what some other group was promoting, then it became an issue of where was he standing when he said XYZ. And there are court cases where people have been arrested for being outside of an abortion clinic and saying something to a clinic client on a public sidewalk. So it’s a slippery slope.
The Phelps group is fairly small and they’ve made a name for themselves by doing this. The more attention they get, the better they like it. That’s why I think the Patriot Guard or the Freedom Riders or whatever those wonderful gentlemen call themselves, are performing an outstanding service.
However, I do think it will be most interesting to see what happens when one of the Phelps family dies. I think they have racked up enough “good will” among military families, that they may actually find themselves on the receiving end of their own type of protest.
Report Post »Indomitus
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 5:52pmThere is no need to restrict anyone’s free speech. We already have laws against verbal assault, the attempt to provoke violence with your speech – fighting words. And if shouting vile insults, calling a fallen son filthy names, and rejoicing in his death at his own funeral are not fighting words to any father forced to listen to them, then I don’t know what are.
Report Post »Rathbone
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 8:04pmThe logic is wrong, just like the Freedom of Religion debate. The Amendment was to protect our beliefs from being hampered by the Federal Government. It was not to protect us from all contact with religion. The Free Speech Amendment was intended to protect us from being silenced by the Federal Government – not each other. We owe everyone a basic minimum of respect – or else we encroach their right to happiness.
Report Post »TruthTalker
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:17pmHope the court backs up the plaintiffs and gets some money out of Westboro.
Report Post »2
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:32pmI think the 1st Amendment should always win unless someone could get hurt.
I ALSO THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO KICK THEIR ASSES & NOT GET IN TROUBLE BECAUSE OF TEMPORARY INSANITY. I KNOW I WOULD GO POSTAL ON THEM. SO WOULD THAT BE PLANNED? NO WAY, IT WOULD JUST HAPPEN.
Report Post »ME
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:49pmI think everything that comes from Obamas mouth is hate speech, can I sue him??? Hate speech it the biggest feel good joke on the plant right up there with man made global warming. If there is not physical violence I should be able to express myself though burning the koran or saying that all of Islam is a tool of the devil to deceive ect… the US army burns bibles and I see no law suits.
Report Post »Awakened One
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:36pmWhat I like about O’Reilly is that he never gloats.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:51pmOn this one, I‘ve got to agree with O’Reilly….and Beck. O’Reilly has the valid point that if a group is INTENTIONALLY inflicting emotional pain and suffering on one or more individuals, damages may be assigned to the aggressing party.
Report Post »Beck has a good point that offensive speech IN GENERAL is still covered. So these rabid animal NON-Baptist creeps were within their rights to protest across the street from the court house during the murder case up in Wyoming a few years back…IF they were not tageting the murder victim specifically…but throw ‘em all in jail if their protest WAS aimed at causing pain to the family of the victim!
The same with this family. The Westboro Bastards aimed DIRECTLY at disrupting a private family service for their son, and the whole lot of ‘em should have been arrested/fined and then the family should have received their compensation in civil court for the injurys they recieved.
P.S. I have a nice loud Harley, and I’m going to give the Patriot Guards a call….
tricityrrr.blogspot.com
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 5:25pmyou know, there is a difference between having the right to do something and then being right about doing it. this is not a new argument, we all know that the ‘reverend’ has the first amendment right to protest, but this despicable man who is supposed to be pure in heart and ‘christ-like‘ as a ’reverend’ is anything but that. he is pathetic and sickening to me and i sincerely hope that when he dies, as we all know he will, the only pathetic attendees will be his twisted followers.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 6:17pmI disagree with O’Reilly on this. O’Reilly is too quick to trust the government to get it right. The fact is, the government seldom gets it right. People who are peaceful and civil will always operate at a disadvantage to those who are willing to break the law or inflict insult upon other people. One of these days, some grieving father or brother might just beat the crap out of these hateful people.
Report Post »Huckabee Gingrich 12
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:49pm@2
Report Post »21st century update: The phrase “going postal” is soooo 1997. Nowadays people “go elementary school”. That was free. You’re welcome.