The Westboro Baptist Church, Free Speech, and a Just Society

[Nathanael D. Striker]

So today in my Great Political Thinkers class we had an in-class debate and duscussion on whether not allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to speak freely promotes a just society. Let's just say that the debate and class discussion got very heated with references to John Sturt Mill's On Liberty, to verbal harm, to psychological studies, to personal experience at Southridge High School, to Supreme Court Cases, etc. Nothing was off limits in this debate. So I ask you YCM, does allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to speak freely promote a just society?

And to help with this discussion, I present this for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pxE6_VY8aM (The Most Hated Family in America). Also, I will personallu lock this thread if things get too chaotic, so you have been warned. So, have at it and let's have a civil debate.

[Tentacruel]

let's have a civil debate.

 

Good luck with that one mate.
 

 

 

OT: Yes.  (But keeping them far away from funerals is fair game.)

 

 

Also, the video.  Bitches don't know bout my MURRICA.  GTFO

 

Bro do you even liberty. 

[Maeriberii Haan]

Answer is simple.

Yes.

They're free to say anything. Just as long as they don't shove it to others in the ways they do it.

This isn't really debatable tbh.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Answer is simple.
Yes.
They're free to say anything. Just as long as they don't shove it to others in the ways they do it.
This isn't really debatable tbh.

Actually, the answer is not as simple as you think. The group that argued the negative referenced the verbal harm that the LGBT+ community and the famikies of fallen receive from the WBC. For me, the freedom of speech should never reach the point where it causes verbal harm to somebody. I'm not talking minor ha, but major harm. For the grieving families, they are already suffering. Adding this group that just comes and says that their child deserved to die for supporting a doomed nation and telling them that their child is going to hell is sick and appalling. Not only that, it further crushes them emotionally. If that is not harm, then I don't know what is.

[Goose]

So they aren't really free to say anything yes?

So they aren't really free to say anything, yes? You can't say someone is free to say anything so long as they can't say anything.

 

inb4matt

[Nathanael D. Striker]

So they aren't really free to say anything yes?

To the point where they are specifically targeting individuals, no. If they were just protesting, be my guest but going out and targeting the family if a fallen soldier is sickening.

[Goose]

To the point where they are specifically targeting individuals, no. If they were just protesting, be my guest but going out and targeting the family if a fallen soldier is sickening.

 

If I find what you have to say sickening, should you not be allowed to say it? Keep in mind I find people who say not to this sickening.

[Tentacruel]

Excuse me for not being an authoritarian.  

[Nathanael D. Striker]

If I find what you have to say sickening, should you not be allowed to say it? Keep in mind I find people who say not to this sickening.

Interesting point. I am not against freedom of speech, though there is a big difference in what you say in how you say it. While I am sickened by their message, they have every right to say it. Though, I am even more sickened on how they say it and that crosses the line in my mind.

[Tentacruel]

Interesting point. I am not against freedom of speech, though there is a big difference in what you say in how you say it. While I am sickened by their message, they have every right to say it. Though, I am even more sickened on how they say it and that crosses the line in my mind.

I can kind of see where you're coming from now.

 

To me, freedom of speech means freedom of expression.  You can express anything, but not literately say anything in any way you want any time anywhere.  

 

ie: Following someone around screaming at them, yelling fire in a crowded theater etc. 

 

So, if you want to go around saying America sucks and that God hates bleep I can't stop you, but you can't go disrupting funerals.  

[Progenitor]

Guys.  Texas Vs. Johnson.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

 

"Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment... Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent."

 

The First Amendment Protects the freedom of expression and speech, with the exception of when it would actually endanger the public. (shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater where there is none for example).

 

So are they allowed to do this stuff?  Yes.

Are they being dicks about it?  Yes.

Are they abusing this right to the fullest?  Yes.

But unless they break the law there is nothing we or the government can do about it.

 

There isn't really a debate here

[Goose]

Guys.  Texas Vs. Johnson.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson

 

"Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment... Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent."

 

The First Amendment Protects the freedom of expression and speech, with the exception of when it would actually endanger the public. (shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater where there is none for example).

 

So are they allowed to do this stuff?  Yes.

Are they being dicks about it?  Yes.

Are they abusing this right to the fullest?  Yes.

But unless they break the law there is nothing we or the government can do about it.

 

There isn't really a debate here

 

Yeah um you really don't understand this debate do you? It's not a question of how things are, it's how things should be. 

[Tentacruel]

Yeah um you really don't understand this debate do you? It's not a question of how things are, it's how things should be. 

Things should be how they are. 

[Goose]

Things should be how they are. 

 

Things should be different.  

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

As far as the law is concerned right now, they do have the right to say whatever they want, even if most of it is inflammatory towards gays/lesbians.

In a way, we are showing equal treatment towards people, but letting a religious radical group do whatever they please.

 

It's a really complicated issue though; seal off their right to speak because of how provocative their comments/actions have been since its inception but risk showing a disparity in allowing speech.

 

Personally, I don't think sealing off their ability to freely talk would really trigger much, with the consideration many people disagree with their comments; even to the extent that former members quit. It's fine to speak your opinions, but there's a fine line between what's acceptable and what isn't; they've crossed over this way too often.

 

Just ignore them and people stop caring about their views after a while.

 

(While certainly not a major factor, this is also one of the reasons I don't have a religious affiliation.)

[The Warden]

We can all just be happy in knowing that all of them will burn in hell for failing to understand the religious views they're squealing like stuck pigs. Let the babies have their bottle, cause eventually, people will just tune out. Like the crazy man having a fit in a mall, in the end people will no longer find him interesting and go about their day ignoring him. They might not go away, but they're no longer getting the attention they clearly crave.

[Progenitor]

Yeah um you really don't understand this debate do you? It's not a question of how things are, it's how things should be. 

 

Well what we are debating here has already been debated in that case.  Hate on them all you want, but at the end of the day, you can't silence a group in a free country just cuz they are abusing a fundamental right of freedom of expression.  That in itself is unjust.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/protests-flash-mobs/facts-case-summary.aspx
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZO.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZD.html

Going to bring Phelps v. Snyder into the discussion. Want to hear your thoughts before posting mine.

[Tentacruel]

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/protests-flash-mobs/facts-case-summary.aspx
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZO.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZD.html

Going to bring Phelps v. Snyder into the discussion. Want to hear your thoughts before posting mine.

 

You should be allowed to ban disruptive people from a private funeral, regardless of what they're saying. 

[Dad]

Let me put it to you this way:

 

My God, the God that I serve, changed the Old Testament (where the WBBC gets most of their content from) in Hebrews 8:13.  Jesus made a new pact, so most of what they suggest in their protests is wrong.  And as far as I'm concerned, it's not a protest.  It's harassment.

[Wahrheit]

I did a thing.

 

Some people thought it was cool.

 

Pertaining to the topic:

 

Required reading #1

Required reading #2