The 1st annual D-Bag Award

[Feba]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

They were sued for their free speech. As with any other lawsuit, the innocent party (innocent of any crimes, guilty of being fucking stupid; but if we started charging for stupidity the tax rate would go through the roof) should be entitled to their legal fees returned. The fact that US courts don't do that on a regular basis is one of the reason frivolous lawsuits and big corporations have so much power-- you can oppress your opponent with legal fees they have no chance of paying, even if they win. Lots of little companies have been muscled out of business that way.

Also, arguing what constitutes violence doesn't stop the fact that there never was any violence and this man was still wronged.

Indeed he was, but not in any way that can be illegal under the US constitution, and therefore not in a way that entitles him to recompense, and especially not to violence. "Being wronged" is not a valid defense for violence. It might be seen as a mitigating factor in your sentencing, but your crimes are still crimes.

[Cryxen]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Free Speech is based on everyone not being such a fucking idiot they don't make some grieving pensioner who lost his son pay a fine for something that caused him pain and wasn't his fault.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

Also, arguing what constitutes violence doesn't stop the fact that there never was any violence and this man was still wronged.

[Feba]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Because the Marines father was threatening them by merit of having a dead son right?

Did they beat up the father?


Is their speech stupid? Absolutely. Is there any reason to say those things? None at all. Does that mean they're any less entitled to free speech? No. Free speech isn't a priviledge which you can lose if you abuse it. Free speech is a human right.

One could argue that their form of speech and the excercise of their freedom of speech begets violence.

No, one couldn't. You can argue about speech that incites violence-- speech with a call to arms, speech with that argues in favor of violence. They don't do that. They might support violence which is already occuring (see WBC Loves Terrorists), but they don't call for more; even if they did, there has to be an immediate threat of that violence happening. The 'inciting violence' bit is really more for the case of sedition; trying to incite riots, vigilantism, and so on. If anyone's guilty of violating that, it's the people threatening violence against the WBC; because there aren't very many people who are going to take up violence at their recommendation.

Simply saying "well hey, it pisses me off, therefore I'm going to hit him, therefore he started it!" is not validation for an incitement to violence. See Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- there are certain cases where extreme speech can be constitutionally unprotected, but A: That doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal either, B: That's more along the lines of intentionally start a fight with someone, C: Potentially offensive political statements, such as flag burning, wearing T-shirts with vulgar mottos, cross-burning, and so on. And this gets narrower as time goes on, not broader.

tl;dr: Unless and until a WBC member says "Iarm gonna keeck yer ass!" (I assume they all speak in a ridiculously silly accent), you aren't allowed to go beating him up. Even if his speech isn't constitutionally protected, he would still have to violate a law or ordinance of some kind and be arrested by a law officer. Constitutionally unprotected speech doesn't make someone open season to everyone with a grudge against them.

[hexx]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Yes. Pretty much exactly. That's sort of the foundation of civilized society: that you don't go out and beat the shit out of people who aren't threatening to beat the shit out of you.

One could argue that their form of speech and the excercise of their freedom of speech begets violence. Wasn't that used by the Supreme Court at some point to denote speech that was NOT protected by the First Ammendment? Basically that if it incites violence it is not protected speech? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting it.

[Cryxen]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Because the Marines father was threatening them by merit of having a dead son right?

[Feba]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Because inclination to violence begets how much damage you can do?

Yes. Pretty much exactly. That's sort of the foundation of civilized society: that you don't go out and beat the shit out of people who aren't threatening to beat the shit out of you.

[Satori]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Such a disgusting group of people.

This is what happens when cousins get a bit too close. Along with webbed feet.

[Cryxen]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Because there's no better way to prove that you disapprove of savagery, intolerance, and stupidity in general than by attacking a non-violent protest group.

Because inclination to violence begets how much damage you can do?

Does not compute.

[Pwnagraphic]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

I thought this was going to be a poll for the website with me in the lead >.< lol

But that's fucked up..

Does anyone else have the urge to say fuck the legal system, and go raid their church?

I do.. I cage fight.. so what Feba said doesn't pertain to me.

[Feba]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Does anyone else have the urge to say fuck the legal system, and go raid their church?

Because there's no better way to prove that you disapprove of savagery, intolerance, and stupidity in general than by attacking a non-violent protest group.

[Fliegar]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Does anyone else have the urge to say fuck the legal system, and go raid their church?

[hexx]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

I am of the belief that, when the day comes and Fred Phelps dies and is going to be buried, we all go to his funeral and picket it, holding signs saying "God Hates Intolerant Pricks", see how they like a taste of their own medicine.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

These people are pathetic, but their existence proves that freedom of speech basically works.

More like what gets attention works.

WBC is suspiciously well-funded for a church with such small membership. You'd think such inbreds wouldn't be able to put together a competent website, much less have so much free time on their hands to make people's lives miserable all over America on a frequent basis.

Really, someone needs to follow the money on these people and see where it comes from.

[Feba]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

These people are pathetic, but their existance proves that freedom of speech basically works.

[Malacite]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

yeah I know it's nothing new but I saw this today and it just disgusted me. I mean just how ignorant are these mouth breathers?