Going Too Far!!!

[Kitty McQuade]

Here's a topic I found at another board I've been prowling. It also has linkage to the topic under discussion there.

http://rufus.go-gaia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=335225

[Dasquian Belargic]

I saw this on LiveJournal a little while back.

Some people :\

[Kelt Simoson]

:\ thats just stupid

[Charley]

As I said before, Fred Phelps is a genius in terms of mapping the boundaries of free speech.

I don't agree with one iota of anything he says or does, but like it or not, he can do it.

There's always a downside to freedom and equality, and Fred Phelps proves it.

[Kitty McQuade]

I hope the family takes him to the highest court for this. It's not free speech, it's a direct and personal attack.

[Gav Mortis]

I'm with Kitty on this one, there's freedom of speech but then there's the abuse of that freedom to parade one's opinions around in people's faces with no consideration for how their actions make other people feel.

Cut his breasts off! Retard.

[Kelt Simoson]

*hands Gavy-boy ze knife*

[Charley]

Originally posted by Kitty McQuade
I hope the family takes him to the highest court for this. It's not free speech, it's a direct and personal attack.

Sure it is. Its neither slanderous, libelous, nor does it breach clear & present danger clauses. He's perfectly within his rights.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Gav Mortis
Cut his breasts off! Retard.

"Off with his breasts!" [/Queen of Hearts]

[Figrin D'an]

Charley is right on this one. Phelps may be an insensitive jerk and represent the worst that intolerance has to offer, but he is within his protected rights in this case.

Free speech isn't just a "sometimes" concept. If it truely is free speech, one has to take the bad that it can bring along with the good.


That being said... I wouldn't mind it at all if I were to open the newspaper or turn on the TV and find out that some completely beat the crap out of Phelps, and let him experience the same physical pain that Matthew Shepard felt.

[Tear]

True it is free speach and the monument may go up..but i bet you it wont stay up very long..before some mob comes over and tears it to pieces. People wont stand for it.

Its freedom of speech but according to law isnt this Prejudice and discrimination against a minority group? So that monument would be against human rights being of "descrimintory signs and notices on public display."

Im not sure about american criminal code but in Canadian law Freedom of speech doesnt allow someone in promoting hatred against any particular group. Its an offence to the criminal code because it violates the charter of rights.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Free Speech is NOT a right.

The only right you have is the next breath of air you take and even then, that can be denied.

What you have is called privledges. A Right can not be removed. You do not have the 'right' of free speech.

You do however have that privledge. Once I believe, you see the difference, you know why I tend to stick up for privledges, rather than rights.

You abuse it, you lose it as far as I'm concerned. There are some things that go too far and that's one of them.

[Morgan Evanar]

We have this peice of paper over here that says you are flat wrong.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
We have this peice of paper over here that says you are flat wrong.

It's a piece of paper.

Big bloody deal.

Your own government right now is proving just how meaningless that piece of paper is. PATRIOT act. Guantanamo Bay. DMCA. Absurd patents. The list can go on.

If you really think that piece of paper means your 'rights' can never be taken away, you need a slap across the face and wake up to reality.

[Droo]

Marcus, that's nonsense. What you're talking about is a "What If?" scenario. We have the right to Freedom of Speech, we have hundreds of rights and subdivisions of rights of all kinds, the list goes on. Unless the US or in my case the UK suddenly goes the way of Communist China, we wont be losing our rights to freedom of speech anytime soon.

Of course the Government can take away our Right to Freedom of Speech but until that law is changed, it stands and is unchangeable.

Bottom line: we no longer live in the dark ages in which free speech is a privilage. It's as simple as that.

[Figrin D'an]

You're arguing semantics, Marcus. By your definition, a "right" does not exist. If that's how you wish to define it, so be it. You'll mearly be in the minority in terms of that connotation.





If you really think that piece of paper means your 'rights' can never be taken away, you need a slap across the face and wake up to reality.


No one is saying that such things can't be taken away. We're speaking in terms of the here and now. And, according to US law in the here and now, Mr. Phelps does have the ability to make the comments he does, and protest things he believes to be morally wrong, without fear of legal retribution from the government.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Figrin D'an
You're arguing semantics, Marcus. By your definition, a "right" does not exist. If that's how you wish to define it, so be it. You'll mearly be in the minority in terms of that connotation.

No one is saying that such things can't be taken away. We're speaking in terms of the here and now. And, according to US law in the here and now, Mr. Phelps does have the ability to make the comments he does, and protest things he believes to be morally wrong, without fear of legal retribution from the government. [/QUOTE]


Whether it be semantics or not, my point is that your 'rights' or 'privledges' are not guarentteed and never have been. They can be removed and from my POV, indeed eroded right now. I also believe that there is limits to those 'rights' or 'privledges'. I also beleive those 'rights' or 'privledges', if they are worth keeping and using, should be defended to the full extent they can be defended.

Mr Phelps is however abusing his 'rigths' or 'privledges', he does not deserve to have them. He is celebrating a murder that was brutal and depraved in a hateful manner. Up to the that point, he could say what he saw as truth. There are limits, or there should be limits and he went past them.

Mr Phelps should also realise that there is a bible passage that talks about teachers leading sheep astray. I very much hope he repents.

[Ace McCloud]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
You abuse it, you lose it as far as I'm concerned. There are some things that go too far and that's one of them.

I somewhat agree with you. But I think it can still be a right but go both ways. It is the first admendment, but if you abuse it, ya lose it. So in some ways it is a privledge, but still a right, as far as I'm concerned.

As for the article. That guy is crazy. I have no problem with anti-gay preachers, but one that is willing to go that far, is rediculous. If he has his own property, he can raise it, but I don't think it should be put on public property. I'm not really going to worry about it, as long as it doesn't effect me and I don't see one.

[Charley]

Originally posted by those Founding Father guys
Bill of Rights



Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Mr Phelps is however abusing his 'rigths' or 'privledges', he does not deserve to have them. He is celebrating a murder that was brutal and depraved in a hateful manner. Up to the that point, he could say what he saw as truth. There are limits, or there should be limits and he went past them.

Mr Phelps should also realise that there is a bible passage that talks about teachers leading sheep astray. I very much hope he repents.

o rly

I'm having a hard time finding precedent to back you up on that one. You think he's the only one who's ever celebrated something horrible?

Ku Klux Klan
PETA
Louis Farrakhan

And about a zillion others would like to have a word with you.

Aside from being a bunch of jerks, they've done nothing to warrant removal of their free speech rights (privileges lol whatever you say!)

So many people are approaching this with a hot head, and not thinking about this objectively.

[Tear]

*Points to my previous post* Everyone has rights freedom of speech etc etc. But there are also limits on far you can take your rights so they dont get abused like marcus is saying.

Freedom of speech allows you to speak your mind practice beliefes whatever but if you go into a crowded movie theater and scream FIRE! Your abusing your rights and there are laws in place to stop such a thing.

So like someone said before i cant remember who..There is a fine line between how much you can speak out before it crosses the line and infringes or endangers someones civil or humanitary rights.

Phelps is treading that line now..

[Charley]

Originally posted by Tear
*Points to my previous post* Everyone has rights freedom of speech etc etc. But there are also limits on far you can take your rights so they dont get abused like marcus is saying.

Freedom of speech allows you to speak your mind practice beliefes whatever but if you go into a crowded movie theater and scream FIRE! Your abusing your rights and there are laws in place to stop such a thing.

So like someone said before i cant remember who..There is a fine line between how much you can speak out before it crosses the line and infringes or endangers someones civil or humanitary rights.

Phelps is treading that line now..


No he isn't. I addressed those clauses (libel, slander, clear & present danger) in my very first reply in this thread.

Phelps isn't breaking a single one of them.

[Tear]

I didnt say he was i said he is close to breaking one. If he erects that monument on public property its a sign of descirmination and hatred to a minority thats against human rights.

Hes not doing anything criminally wrong YET. hence the treading the line

[Charley]

Originally posted by Tear
I didnt say he was i said he is close to breaking one. If he erects that monument on public property its a sign of descirmination and hatred to a minority thats against human rights.

Hes not doing anything criminally wrong YET. hence the treading the line

Even the monument would be protected under his freedom of expression. There's nothing that it would violate.

[Tear]

Human rights laws affect four main activites: employment; accommodation; the provision of goods and services; discriminatory signs and notices on public display. Wouldnt an 8 foot large marple monument showing hate and prejudice toward a minority group go under the descriminatory signs and notices on public display?

[Charley]

Canada isn't America. America isn't a social-democracy just yet, and won't be either, under my watch.

[Mr Dust]

And to re-hash the age-old argument, if you stop him from this, it's one step away from the removal of free speech. The same law that keeps people from putting me in jail for sharing my faith in Jesus is the one that's keeping him outta jail. You've got to be sure not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Ace McCloud]

Well said Dust

[Kitty McQuade]

Isn't there anything the Shepard Family can do about this?

[Ka' el Darcverse]

Having a crucifix in a bottle on one's urine is considered Freedom of Speech and when people tried to remove that from a museum because it was offensive to Christians they were lambasted for intolerance and attempting to restrict freedom of speech. Why is it that when Christians and conservatives are insulted and discriminated against and they complain it's "Intolerance for dissenting ideas" but when Conservatives and Christians put something up that is deemed offensive its not intolerance its defending the rights of minorities?

There is a vicious double standard set up by liberals to make sure that they can win every argument by using a bull-*&^& concept of tolerance (All ideas are equally valid and correct? Unless of course they dissent against your concept of tolerance, then they aren't.)

Get over it, you have to take the good with the bad, the offensive with the warm and fuzzy. Either you are going to have freedom of speech which allows government criticism and watchdog and in the same breath allow pornography and this type of stuff or you can have no freedom of speech and throw it all out, just depends on what you want.

[Dasquian Belargic]

If it was anti-black, anti-christian or anti-any religion for that matter, I bet they would tear it down in a second.

[Charley]

Originally posted by Dasquian Belargic
If it was anti-black, anti-christian or anti-any religion for that matter, I bet they would tear it down in a second.

Repeat after me. If there is no libel, and it doesn't incite or create a direct threat to well-being, then it is legal.

Sucks, but you have to roll with punches like that to maintain proper freedoms.

I've seen KKK rallies at a town square, with a full police escort. Their right to speak, as cretinous as they are, is fully supported.

Farrakhan's Million Man March was a HUGE hatemongering hullabaloo. Listen to the man. He hates Jews almost like Hitler did. It's still protected speech.