Westboro Baptist Church Plans To Picket Leonard Nimoy's Funeral

[Spooky]

Let them picket. Free speech has side-effects, one of which is that we have to sometimes endure people we don't like expressing opinions we disagree with, in a manner that offends us.

I respectfully disagree.
Free speech has its limits. The classic example is the "shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater". It is my opinion they have completely overstepped the parameters of "Free Speech". What they do is dangerous, unnecessary, and quite frankly I wouldn't be sad if it gets them killed.

I spent 8 years in the Army "Defending your freedom" (or whatever bullshit term they're using these days, I enlisted to escape from my familial situation). Not one person I ever met would support these fuckwits.


Edit: And by the way, RIP To Leonard Nimoy, the world is a little worse without him.

[Cyberman]

I think the moral is if you're going to yell "fire!", there had damn well better be a fire.

[vorlon13]

I see having your funeral picketed by the Westboro Baptists as a sign of a life well lived.

Hard to imagine any other opposition group doing more to advance gay rights than Westboro Baptist.

Shirley Phelps has even been interviewed about how, despite their protests, America has taken a sharp turn the other way.

[Vox Populi]

respectfully disagree.
Free speech has its limits. The classic example is the "shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater". It is my opinion they have completely overstepped the parameters of "Free Speech". What they do is dangerous, unnecessary, and quite frankly I wouldn't be sad if it gets them killed.

I spent 8 years in the Army "Defending your freedom" (or whatever bullshit term they're using these days, I enlisted to escape from my familial situation). Not one person I ever met would support these fuckwits.

I first want to say: Thank you for serving your country.

Second: You gave me a whole new prospective on this issue with WBB. I try to try to find the line when it comes to them. But back in the day my people (gays) did some things during the protests that are almost the same (women getting a pie thrown at her face) but I believe the parades and protesting back then were just and they weren't sitting at someone's funeral with pickets. Except for the few extremist back in the day of our protests it wasn't very violent (as I know of anyways.) there were a few people who went overboard and really gave the whole movement (AT THAT TIME) a bad image. So, what point I am trying to make is that, its so hard for me to determine what they should and shouldn't do. Do I think its right what they are doing? NO WAY! Its someone's dang funeral, let alone a figure that has inspired many people and created a wonderful legacy. I'm so confused on the topic so take my view as a grain of salt.

[Minimalist]

I really want some views on this? Is this "okay" because it's free speech?

Sadly, yes.

Of course, they have to abide by the rules for demonstrations in that municipality.

[Jenny A]

Apparently, WBC has cancelled due to their inability to find out where the funeral is being held.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1885437/leonard...l-be-held/

Good for his family and friends. But, I kinda wish the WBC had gotten a chance to try it, because I think Trekkies would have driven them out in humiliation.

[Norman Humann]

There were some who believed that the Westboro Baptist Church never really intended to protest at the funeral of Leonard Nimoy. The church is famous for announcing plans to picket at high-profile funerals and other events but never showing up.

Some fine attention whoring.

I wonder how boring must their lives be?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So this is an organisation that is entirely dedicated to hate. How is it legal?

Here:

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.

I have emboldened the two pertinent clauses.

They're clearly crossing the line between free speech and hate crime.

No, they're not. In America, a hate crime is the commission of what is already a crime (say, vandalism) which is motivated by bigotry based on race, religion, national origin, and so on.

It is not a crime to picket so long as the appropriate permits are obtained.

The point of their existence is to offend people.

There is no right to be free of offense.

It's a complicated matter to myself how free-speech and harrassment can somehow be classed under the same umbrella. (If that makes any sense).

According to the law, what they do is not harassment:

c) As used in this section—
(1) the term “harassment” means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that—
(A) causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and
(B) serves no legitimate purpose; and
(2) the term “course of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose.

What they do is dangerous, unnecessary, and quite frankly I wouldn't be sad if it gets them killed.

What dangers are there in marching with signs?

Should all unnecessary speech be stultified? Or just that speech which isn't to your taste?

I spent 8 years in the Army "Defending your freedom" (or whatever bullshit term they're using these days, I enlisted to escape from my familial situation). Not one person I ever met would support these fuckwits.

I spent four in the Air Force defending those rights, too ... for everybody. While I detest their message, I believe censorship is not the answer to these assholes.

[Norman Humann]

Here:

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.

I have emboldened the two pertinent clauses.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

According to the law, what they do is not harassment:

c) As used in this section—
(1) the term “harassment” means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that—
(A) causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and
(B) serves no legitimate purpose; and
(2) the term “course of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose.

I just wanted to ask, though. They've been picketing the funerals of veterans. The soldiers' parents have expressed their emotional hurt afterwards. Wouldn't this classify as harrassment?

[Thumpalumpacus]

According to the law, what they do is not harassment:

I just wanted to ask, though. They've been picketing the funerals of veterans. The soldiers' parents have expressed their emotional hurt afterwards. Wouldn't this classify as harrassment?

No, because the specific harassment has to be against the same person on multiple occasions.