Tell FBI: Recognize Westboro As A Hate Group

Just thought I would share this.

It's been labeled a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and The Southern Poverty Law Center, and has repeatedly targeted groups based purely on race, sexual orientation or religion. Its members picket funerals, stalk local organizers, and spread intolerance wherever they go.

    Views: 3,628
  • zebidybob
  • January 8, 2013, 4:12 pm
You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 4

    I have to agree with Johnecash on this one, what they are doing may be stupid and I hate what they are doing, they are protected by the Constitution and because of that I would defend their right to be ignorant and I would not sign that petition. If they were lynching people in the street that would be a different story.

    So even though they aurally and visually assault people based on race, sexual orientation and religion that is O.K but as soon as it becomes physical that's wrong?
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 10:26 am
    That is protected by the first amendment, but physical violence is not, besides as far as I know there were no threats, just statements. Being a Idiot or crazy wrong about something is not illegal, so we have to protect their right say things that they believe no matter how we feel about the subject.
    - DontTouchMyPuddin January 9, 2013, 10:47 am
    “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” ― Eleanor Roosevelt
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 10:50 am
    So I disagree with how things are being put across by the WBC, I don't care about the message as I don't believe in any god (well Thor maybe) so therefor heaven and hell IMO don't exist. I do think there is a massive difference in a peaceful protest with banners saying
    1) "God doesn't like homosexuals, you won't be allowed into heaven" compared to
    2)"God hates fags, everyone is going to hell" (for being "fag enablers")

    Also In the U.S.A is there a watershed for T.V programs and films (e.g no swearing before 9pm)?
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 1:49 pm
    The 1st amendment may protect unpopular speech, but I see no reason to use it to justify hate speech. If you abuse your rights and use them for the sole purpose of tormenting others, why should you be allowed to keep them? Their "church" has no more value to society than the KKK. They're a hate group, treat them as such. Also, lets take away their tax exempt status while we're at it.
    - CrazyJay January 11, 2013, 11:26 am
  • 3

    To me the starts treading in the waters of removing the rights of the first amendment. If I were to go along with this, I'd be a terrible hypocrite. I stand strongly on the right to free speech. Don't get me wrong, I hate and despise what these grotesque monsters do. However, if we were to infringe on their rights as Americans according to the first amendment we are also declaring that those who protest among our own political beliefs shall also no longer be allowed to do so.

  • 2

    you guys like shooting people, it's only a matter of time before someone shoots them.

    problem solved.

    No one likes shooting anyone.
    - johnecash January 11, 2013, 10:46 pm
    riiiiight riiight
    - poopiteepoop January 12, 2013, 4:40 am
    You just trolling again. Sorry I thought you were a real post not a troll.
    - johnecash January 12, 2013, 11:52 am
    - poopiteepoop January 14, 2013, 1:03 pm
    I have learned that to argue with you is like winning a gold medal in the special olympic.

    - johnecash January 14, 2013, 2:03 pm
    haha, but the thing is johne, I'm not even arguing, you silly goose
    - poopiteepoop January 14, 2013, 5:00 pm
    - johnecash January 14, 2013, 6:28 pm
  • 1

    I second that notion

    Have you followed the link?
    - zebidybob January 8, 2013, 4:38 pm
  • 1

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire
    Larry Flynt discussed the sacrifices he’s made while protecting his First Amendment rights.
    “Fighting those battles wasn’t easy,” Flynt said. “I’ve been shot and paralyzed as a result of it. But freedom of speech is not freedom for the thought you love, it’s freedom for the thought you hate the most. You have to get your head around that.”

    Be careful when going down the road of censorship. Its a road that once traveled, you can not back track on.

    I would have thought with you being a military man you would have been against (at least) the way they are going about things e.g picketing funerals of deceased military personnel.
    - zebidybob January 8, 2013, 4:37 pm
    Westboro goes beyond free speech, into harassment.
    - Ertrov January 8, 2013, 4:39 pm
    As a military man I took an oath to defend the constitution, not just the people I agree with. I don't like what they are doing, just like I don't like people who cheat on their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend. That does not make it illegal.
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 4:50 pm
    That's what they said about my grandmother when she was at the Selma march for civil rights.
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 4:51 pm
    I may be wrong but I am fairly sure even in America that having an affair is illegal.

    Do you not think that in more than one way they are simply bullies?
    With more people being prosecuted for cyber bullying this is becoming more prevalent.
    - zebidybob January 8, 2013, 4:56 pm
    Having an affair is not illegal in any way shape or form when it comes to civilians. Let me say that again, in no way is my personal love life or sex life governed by the state and thank God for that. Are they bullies? To me a bully is defined as some one who disrupts your day to day activities with verbal and or physical threats. If this was some group of kids at a high school a case could be made for verbal abuse. As far as I know they have not physical abused anyone. One of the greatest rights we as US citizens have is the First Amendment. This amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and protects the RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY. These ass hats are only using the rights I fought for. I don't have to agree with what you have to say, but Ill fight for your right to say it. If we can not protect the freedom of speech of those we can not stand, we have no hope of protecting the ones we love.
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 5:06 pm

    present participle of bul·ly
    Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants. - I think this defines what the WBC are doing
    Physical, verbal and mental are all types of bullying, so is abuse (but that is slightly different) I don't have a problem with peaceful protests but generally during protests or rallies people are trying to get a point across. The WBC are just openly happy people have died saying they deserved to die and will be going to hell. If they didn't have the magical shit deflector called the church I am sure someone would be in jail or court by now.

    Seems like Canada agree "Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech"
    - zebidybob January 8, 2013, 5:51 pm
    Yet when you cheat on your wife, you will not be arrested.
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 6:02 pm
    I didn't mean to post that when I did big edit above.

    So what is your definition of illegal?
    - zebidybob January 8, 2013, 6:08 pm
    I seriously doubt she was yelling crude things about people's dead children being 'fags' and being sent to hell to the mourning families.
    - Ertrov January 8, 2013, 6:25 pm
    What she did was so offensive to some that dogs, gas and water hoses were used. What she was apart of was so offensive to some they were lynched. So I take it you don't believe in freedom of speech? Or do you only believe in freedom of speech when you agree with it?
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 6:36 pm
    What you posted is grounds for a divorce, not jail time of fines. So far the asshats at WBC have not forced any one to do anything. Tell me, do you only agree with freedom of speech when you agree with what's being said?

    I am from the US so I can not comment on what or why Canada does what it does.
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 6:38 pm
    I agree with everything you said. So does WBC. As far as I know they have not started any physical confrontations. Their protest are piecefull. Now the message they are trying to get across is what you disagree with, not how they are doing it. Once again you must ask yourself, does free speech only apply to the messages you agree with?
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 6:47 pm
    You are unbelievable. I wish I could just assume you were a troll, but I've been on this site long enough to realize you really are just as insane as you seem.
    - Ertrov January 8, 2013, 7:35 pm
    I'm assuming you didn't read any of that link?
    "In the United States, laws vary from state to state. As of 2012, adultery remains a criminal offense in 23 states."
    You don't go to jail for a parking offense (you get a ticket/fine) but it is still illegal.

    No I don't just agree with freedom of speech when I agree with what is being said.
    Do I go to church's and try to stop people praying? No
    Do I try and stop people protesting abortion? No
    Do I agree with any religion? No

    I do have to disagree with you about the WBC, they are trying to stay on the correct side of a very thin line between right and wrong (in the eyes of the law) but if you called someone a "Nigger" you could have a racism case on your hands, now how is that any different from the WBC calling Homosexuals "Fags"? would this be a case of sexism? or homophobia?
    If some random person on facebook or here or somewhere else on the Internet posted that "all service personnel who passed away are in hell and I'm glad" how would you react? how would the media react? would it be cyber bullying?
    How about if it was graffiti on a wall?
    - zebidybob January 8, 2013, 7:45 pm
    So in your eyes a peaceful protest with protesters asking for equality is the same as a protest in which the protesters verbally / emotionally abuse innocent people.
    - zebidybob January 8, 2013, 8:06 pm
    Wow you didn't agree or disagree with me, you went straight to name calling and left the topic at hand. Is this the path you want to take?
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 9:29 pm
    So what is the punishment? Can it be a crime without punishment?
    So you are for censorship? You don't think people should be able to say nigger or fag? Tell me more about any other ways you support censorship.
    I am not happy when the ass hats protest my fallen brothers and sisters.

    I think this clip should help explain my point of view.,d.eWU
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 9:31 pm
    Why do you want to make saying the word fag a crime? I call stuff "gay" or "lame" a lot, would you prosecute me for homophobia or whatever it's called where you hate disabled people? Being overly politically correct is not the answer to our problems here. You would only have a case of racism on your hands if you called someone a nigger while committing a hate crime. Probably 99% of all black people would be fine with anyone saying it if they weren't using it in a racist way (at least in my experience saying it around blacks). Similarly, I don't care if a black person calls me casper.
    - casper667 January 8, 2013, 9:32 pm
    They may say what ever they like. It's up to you to determine if you want to listen. I would never advocate censorship.
    - johnecash January 8, 2013, 9:42 pm
    People can say whatever the hell they want, words shouldn't hurt us so badly. Though when they physically come to ruin or harass a funeral service, they're taking it way too far. When we talk about freedom of speech, we should also realize that speech isn't the only thing they use in their arsenal of fuck. Not that I don't understand your point of view, but you also seem to deviate from the fact they are not all words and peace. Their view on what they "believe" can be whatever they want. Protestors like the ones in the black rights movement, they spoke of what they believed and why they are right. WBC is telling us what we believe and why it's our fault. They don't simply tell us the "error" in our ways, but rather pounds their idea that we are either fags or we believe in Christ.

    Final idea is that sure, freedom of speech is A+ and is a great thing, but WBC isn't all simple speech, and when you mention how other protestors were labeled "harassing," you have to realize that what WBC is doing, and any other protestor are different. Sometimes, they are not giving us a choice of whether or not to listen. Trying to tell me to ignore them when they're on the street, or at a funeral verbally abusing everyone who doesn't agree with them, is like telling me not to grow facial hair. I can ignore it, but it won't change the fact it's there and in my face.
    - chaosmaster January 9, 2013, 1:18 am
    I will acknowledge their right to free speech, it'll be when they're done that I'll kick their teeth in and then they can talk all they want course with their jaws wired shut I'm sure it would be much more difficult.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 2:23 am
    I don't as such, all I was trying to point out is that there seems to be one rule for one and a different one for the rest. If a black (or coloured, what ever is pc now) took exception to being called a "Nigger" you COULD have a case for racism. Oh and fag the way I would use it means cigarette.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 8:22 am
    ARE YOU STUPID? If you had of read that link then you would have noticed that the punishment can vary from state to state, I personally can't think of a crime with no punishment as long as the criminal is properly prosecuted.

    Now I do agree with the freedom of speech, maybe not to the extent that you guys want, I believe that if someone is knowingly causing emotional / mental pain or anguish then they should be stopped (even better that persons own moral compass should guide them), I am not saying that they should never be allowed to get their point across but it shouldn't be done in the way they are trying. More to the point I don't care what they say behind closed doors but the general public shouldn't have to put up with offensive slurs.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 8:30 am
    That last line is perfect! You are obviously better at articulating your point.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 8:33 am
    Violence isn't the answer :)
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 8:34 am
    In my town there is a city ordnance that bans women from wearing high heeled shoes down down. This law is never enforced. Very much so like to laws you say I am stupid for never in my life seeing some one punished by the state for sleeping around.

    If you don't like what some one is saying then don't listen. Its just that easy. To take away our freedom of speech is a dumb thing to do. Trust me, some where out there, some one feels the same about something you do or say. You want to take the rights of others away, but in the end you are taking your own rights away.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 9:47 am
    So you would acknowledge their right to free speech with criminal assault and batter? If you want these people to go away, for get them. Don't talk about them. The feed on any attention you give them.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 9:49 am
    So you are for censorship? You only agree with freedom of speech when you agree with the speech or "its not in your face?"
    What they are doing is protected under the 1st amendment.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 9:52 am
    As I said if the person is properly prosecuted! If I robbed a bank and didn't get caught does that make what I did legal? (I know it's extreme but you are saying if there is no punishment then there is no crime)

    "The last conviction for adultery in Massachusetts occurred in 1983." - Wiki

    I'm sure someone somewhere disagrees with me (Most people in this thread) but I don't think I am being offensive (Apart from calling you stupid but that was more in jest / to see how you would react) if I was being offensive and someone told me I would try and take a different tact.

    I almost agree with what you have said below about ignoring them but that is kind of sticking your head in the sand, and obviously the U.S.A's government doesn't think the same else they would never have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 10:13 am
    You really think the last time adultery was committed was 1983??? Don't get off track of the topic at hand. To truly win your argument, where does the 1st amendment say what you are asking for?
    Next, it would seem you are for censorship? It would seem you are against or right to gather and protest? What other rights are you against?
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 10:23 am
    These people picket, sing, yell and hold up signs. As of yet I have not been informed of them disrupting any event by physically stopping anyone. Change their message and they are just any other group using their rights. Everything I have read on this post shows that people are mad at what the group says, not how they are saying it. I too would like the WBC to take a long walk off a short pier, but they have broken no laws. I am not for Censorship when it comes to art, movies, books, music, or public assembly as guaranteed by the highest law in the land. To enjoy the speech we like, we must also put up with the speech we don't like. Otherwise we are no better than WBC.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 10:39 am
    O.K pretty much over discussing this with you as you obviously don't actually read everything that has been written and jump to your own conclusions.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 1:40 pm
    The topic at hand is censorship. Are you for or against it?
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 1:45 pm
    Suddenly can't deal with it? you should probably get tested for dyslexia or ADHD.

    Can you actually hold your hands up and say "oops I was wrong my bad"?

    I am for censorship if what is being said is abusive, as I believe that emotional / mental abuse should be given the same status as physical abuse not just in the home but on the street.

    I also don't see the need for aggressive protesting like the WBC, protests should be about meaningful things like voting rights or equal opportunities not slagging someone off because they are different.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 2:01 pm
    When we are done with the topic at hand I am more than willing to go into the topic of adultery and the real word government sanctioned penalties all you like. As of yet I still disagree with you. None the less that is not the topic at hand now is it?

    Back to the topic at hand, censorship.
    You said; I am for censorship if what is being said is abusive, as I believe that emotional / mental abuse should be given the same status as physical abuse not just in the home but on the street.

    So I take it you would be against;
    Music lite N.W.A FUCK DA POLICE?

    Pornography in general? (Please look up the People vs Larry Flynt.)

    Art, Does this make the stature better or worse?

    Should violent video games that do and say what you are complaining about, might not be as bad in your eyes but to many others its much worse than WBC. Just in recent news games are being blamed for the mass shooting?

    Books like "The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn, would you take out the word nigger that is used around 220 time? Its already happening
    Very sad any company would ever change anything by Twain. But thats what happens when you censor things.

    Movies? Would the world be a better place if the groups back in the 70's got to ban this? Their complaint was the same as yours.

    The Right for people to use public space to gather and speak their mind?

    Everything I just went will be censored by your definition and people have been trying to do just that. Everything I went over may be considered a form of self expression and or art. If WBC wants to protest and they are not breaking any laws with their gathering. We may not like what their message is but its up to you if you want to listen. No one is forcing you to stay and listen. Don't like what music that guy with the guitar is playing on the side of the subway station, walk away. Ask yourself do you really want the state to control your own morality or can you do it? I do not. Nor did the founding fathers. Did you know what our first amendment is? Not our 2nd or 3rd, but what was the very FIRST law of the land?
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 2:47 pm
    I'm fairly sure if NWA was played on radio during the day it would have to be censored.
    Art is an interesting point, but how would you describe it as abusive?
    pornography is censored to a certain extent as children (minors) can't / shouldn't be able to buy it.
    Games and movies the same as above they have an age rating - so still a type of censorship.
    Books - I assume they aren't recalling the old versions? The word was a derogatory term e.g a form of abuse
    Protesting - I agree with all but the KKK as they were trying to get rid of peoples Civil Rights, trying to be superior, again another form of abuse.

    "Did you know what our first amendment is? Not our 2nd or 3rd, but what was the very FIRST law of the land?"

    Fairly sure it was an amendment and in order to amend something there needs to be something there in the first place e.g the constitution. I'm not American and I know that.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 3:03 pm
    Oh your not for the US? Never mind then, carry on. Think what you like, but it would seem you don't understand what the country is. I would advise you at least read the first 10 amendments call the Bill of Rights. Until you have read them, you truly have no idea of what you are talking about are are ignorant (Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular) of the subject of free speech and how its applied to the Citizens of the US. You see here we have this thing called "Freedom of Speech." Its the very first amendment, or law of the land, for the US constitution. Here in this country we allow people to speak their mind. Be it against gays, the government, big business or even just the crazy guy with the "Then end of the world is near" sign in the park of just about every major city in the US.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 3:18 pm
    What so I'm not allowed an opinion now?

    No I'm "not for the US" - whatever that means (I assume you mean your not from the U.S.A)
    "you truly have no idea of what you are talking about are are ignorant" - not sure what that means, anyway proof read before posting, it may help.

    So what about this?
    A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), hate groups' "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated several Christian groups as hate groups, including American Family Association, Family Research Council, Abiding Truth Ministries, American Vision, Chalcedon Foundation, Dove World Outreach Center and Traditional Values Coalition

    This is actually the point of this post!
    The F.B.I. already recognizes hate groups so your point about - If you sign this you are stopping free speech is mute
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 4:20 pm
    You are more than welcome to have your opinion. As I have said many times I might not like what you have to say but ill fight for your right to say it.
    Now when I say you are ignorant and then give you the definition of the word, you implied you had not read and studied the US constitution.. Without doing that you are ignorant of the subject you speak of.
    For not understanding the laws of our land this is one of many reasons I truly don't care what foreigners think we should do with MY country. I care about what my people want for us. Sorry my friend but you don't have a dog in this hunt.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 4:48 pm
    I didn't need you to explain.... I was taking the piss out of your bad spelling and grammar.

    I may not have studied it but that doesn't mean I don't understand the basics, and from an outside point of view I would like to think I have a non-biased view on the actual written text.
    Also I love the way everything has to be about you.

    What about my last point? If you believe by classifying the WBC as a "Hate group" this blunts freedom of speech then you need to ask the question "why are these already classed as "Hate groups" - American Family Association, Family Research Council, Abiding Truth Ministries, American Vision, Chalcedon Foundation, Dove World Outreach Center and Traditional Values Coalition

    p.s. I am not your friend (acquaintance at best), people have to earn that right.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 7:37 pm
    There's just one problem with that, they are still there spouting a message of hate that does nothing to further human progress. I can ignore them until I'm blue in the face, but the fact that they exist is what irks me.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 8:14 pm
    It suckes they are here but to censor them is no the American way.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 8:21 pm
    And pacifism is? I have dealt with pacifists before, they hide behind those who are willing to do the dirty work only to criticize the method in which they get the work done. It's like getting rid of a cancer, you don't ignore it and hope it goes away, you systematically destroy it. I'll give the pacifistic approach a chance in the hopes that it is a matter of attrition, but if or when it doesn't work may the wrath of a vengeful god find use of mortal hands.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 8:21 pm
    Exactly why you wait until they are done talking.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 8:23 pm
    You have never read the laws that govern this but think you know? Please look up the word ignorant.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 8:23 pm
    I truly do believe the best response to them is what the honor guard is doing. Beat them at their own legal game and just drown them out with the sound of patriots and a wall of flags. The WBC is almost worth it if only to see people pull together to block them out.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 8:46 pm
    I don't think MLK and his group sat ideally by.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 8:48 pm
    or an angry mob running them out of towns with torches and pitch forks.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 9:24 pm
    An angry mob means WBC wins.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 10:02 pm
    please show me where I said I hadn't read the constitution or amendments.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 10:15 pm
    All matter of perspective. Sure they get a reaction they probably wanted, but every time they are seen running with tail between their legs the people are empowered. They would see that no longer would they be forced to let the wbc disrespect the memories of the fallen. If the people get riled up and chase them out it shows that what the WBC is doing is a prime example of "fighting words" as it would incite an immediate breach of the peace, something that isn't protected under free speech.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 10:40 pm
    My bad you said you had not studied it . He'll you were lost when I asked you what the first amendment is. When you know what it is, you will know what you are talking about.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 10:48 pm
    Ill never advocate violence over justice.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 10:48 pm
    In normal circumstances neither would I, there's no need for senseless violence. But sometimes it takes a little violence to get a point across.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 11:03 pm
    Are you talking about -

    Fairly sure it was an amendment and in order to amend something there needs to be something there in the first place e.g the constitution. ?

    I was trying to point out your mistake, you can't call something an amendment unless there is something to amend. So your supposed first law is an amendment to the Constitution that is based on the Magna Carta.

    You haven't answered my question about the groups already catergorized as hate groups.

    Do you use predictive to type? because you really should proof read before posting. The old GN's would have a field day.
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 11:06 pm
    A wise man once said an eye fr an eye and the world goes blind.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 11:10 pm
    Please go do some reading. Then speak once you have a clue what the first amendment is, and why it is applicable to the topic at hand. It is the highest law there is for the topic at hand. Our conversation is now over until you read what you are talking about.
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 11:15 pm
    Then I would rather go blind pursuing the happiness of the many than watch in disdain as the few make the many miserable.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 11:34 pm
    You really think I'm stupid don't you?

    The constitution was based on the Magna carta and it is the basis for the American (US) judicial system and way of life. the first ten amendments to the constitution are called the bill of rights. (May I point out at this time that the constitution cannot be changed but other laws e.g amendments can be added in order to change the meaning of the original text. So in reality it is being changed.)
    the first amendment basically states that no law can be passed concerning the right of free speech (in my opinion that is actually hypocritical) amongst other things (but that is the relevant part to this thread)

    The Constitution has been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of twenty-seven amendments).

    sorry if it's not perfect but it was off the top of my head and it is very late or early (Thor damn insomnia).

    You still haven't broached the subject of "Hate groups" are you avoiding it on purpose?
    - zebidybob January 9, 2013, 11:46 pm
    affairs are if one of the participants are under 18
    - xxkisamexx January 10, 2013, 1:04 am
    You are talking about statutory rape, and the age is not always 18.
    - johnecash January 10, 2013, 10:04 am
    oh yeah right i just know its something with if theyre under 18 even if they said yes its jail
    - xxkisamexx January 10, 2013, 3:22 pm
    DIFFRENT states have DIFFRENT ages. As far as I know there is no fed law.
    - johnecash January 10, 2013, 4:19 pm
    The constitution states that the government wont give special treatment to religions, and by giving them tax exemption status, they have already broken it. But I do agree with you to an extent, sure they have the right to say it, but we also have the right to tell them to shut the fuck and keep their negativity to themselves. It's a form of harrassment/bullying and last I checked, that's frowned upon in society nowdays, and as an evolving society of civilised people, we don't have room for hatred and malice because they were told to do it by either a book or their parents who were told by their parents etc.
    - Dragkyre January 12, 2013, 5:05 am
    Freedom of speech is all well and good, but I'm sure if I went up to an orphanage and started laughing at all the kids for not having parents..... pretty sure I'd get in a lot of shit for it. (first example that came to mind). I think people have taken free speech way out of proportion. Their hate targets others freedom, they push to have gays/blacks etc to be dehumanised, which is a total affront to the freedom they claim to be defending. Say what you want, but keep it in a civil fashion, and don't use freedom of speech as an excuse to be asshats. They even protest soldiers funerals, people who died for their freedom, which I find to be truly pathetic and I'd stake my life on the fact if they were abused or harrassed they would jump to the legal system that they protest so much to protect them.
    - Dragkyre January 12, 2013, 5:11 am
    “Fighting those battles wasn’t easy,” Flynt said. “I’ve been shot and paralyzed as a result of it. But freedom of speech is not freedom for the thought you love, it’s freedom for the thought you hate the most. You have to get your head around that.”
    - johnecash January 12, 2013, 11:51 am
    “Fighting those battles wasn’t easy,” Flynt said. “I’ve been shot and paralyzed as a result of it. But freedom of speech is not freedom for the thought you love, it’s freedom for the thought you hate the most. You have to get your head around that.”
    - johnecash January 12, 2013, 11:51 am
  • 1

    Not sure if i can/should sign that thing, being in England, but i support it anyway

    I signed it ;-)
    - zebidybob January 8, 2013, 6:04 pm
    What good does it do to have foreigners sign an FBI partition? More importantly why do foreigners think the US cares about what you think we should do with our internal business?
    - johnecash January 12, 2013, 12:06 pm
  • 1

    Give it time and they'll be protesting in the wrong area, the cops will go out for a break, the tapes will come out of the cameras and what needs to be done will be done. You have the right to say what you want but that doesn't mean you can't suffer the consequences for it.

    By suffer the consequences are you advocating physical abuse? You make it sound like that since they are following the law you want to break the law to punish them?
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 9:54 am
    I'm not advocating physical abuse, but when you piss of as many people as they have it's an educated guess that they'll get what they got coming to them.
    - triclebickle January 9, 2013, 8:10 pm
    I agree with that
    - johnecash January 9, 2013, 8:19 pm
  • 1

    Although we (the Brits) do believe in freedom of speech Westboro wouldn't get away with what they do over here. They would be arrested on the grounds of inciting racial/religious violence.

    • Math
    • January 14, 2013, 9:02 am
    I am sorry you live in a place where the government wants to control the free speech of its people. Just as I am sorry you live in a place where the government does not trust its own citizens with guns.
    While I don't agree with this, it is your countries sovereign right to do just that, and the one thing I do respect is your countries sovereign right
    - johnecash January 14, 2013, 11:19 am
    "I am sorry you live in a place where the government wants to control the free speech of its people" - This happened to come about to stop Abu Hamza and such like preaching their hate but has ended up being used as a police arrest tool! I too dislike this law.

    "Just as I am sorry you live in a place where the government does not trust its own citizens with guns." - Ahh but I do have guns! I have 3 air rifles, a .22 rimfire Buckmaster, a Miroku OU 12G Skeet and a turn of the century family heirloom hammer action SS 12G.
    - Math January 15, 2013, 8:16 am
    I am happy to see that across the pond people care about their freedom of speech.
    Air rifles are not the same thing. What I was getting at was the ability to own guns like we do. I take my 1911 everywhere with me due to my concealed carry permit. For fun and hunting I shoot my AUG A3 with beta mag. I am thinking of ordering a Red Jacket Sega 12 for bird hunting.
    We are not "allowed" to have guns just for sport. We are allowed to have guns in order to defend one self (hence the concealed carry permit) and to maintain a well regulated civilian militia.
    - johnecash January 15, 2013, 9:27 am
    Read the above again a little more carefully. 3 air rifles are only 3 of my 6 guns ie: the rimfire and the two shotguns.

    FFS do you actually read whole posts?
    - Math January 15, 2013, 6:11 pm
    So how many semiautomatic firearms do you own? How about pistols?
    - johnecash January 15, 2013, 7:16 pm
    One a Browning Buckmaster.
    No pistols for obvious reasons but then again it's highly unlikely I'd come up against someone with one as they're as rare as rocking horse shit.
    - Math January 16, 2013, 5:51 am
    The more you know . . . I had wrongly thought semi auto was banned in the UK
    - johnecash January 16, 2013, 9:24 am
  • 1

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Related Posts