Does no one see that WBC is the good guy in this story?
Your argument was considered and rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps (2011),
in which it was held that the high nuisance general method of speech that is used by the WBC activists is fully protected speech.
Read that case. Then let me know where you think the Court erred. Even better, thank me and tell me that you learned something.
Just because the Supreme Court says so, doesn't make it right, or wrong. The court, congress and every law maker errors here because they preach about hate "crimes" and the WBC is allowed to do what others in some states would go to jail for. I might be wrong on this, but I am pretty sure there are few states where WBC is not allowed or for that matter WBC won't even touch.
Thank you for conversing. You could not have read Snyder v. Phelps (2011) in the ten minutes that elapsed between my post and your reply. In the U.S., there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment; hate speech is fully protected by federal law, which trumps state law. All states must conform to Snyder v. Phelps (2011), which was decided in favor of the general method of speech used by WBC.
AFAIK, it is WBC's method, not their viewpoint, that is controversial. Their viewpoint, although unpopular and disagreeable to many, is right out of the Bible and is arguably clearly not hate speech. It is their willingness to inflict emotional pain on vulnerable people in mourning that is, rightly, controversial. In terms of law, this is a controversy over nuisance.
Whether WBC has a moral right to inflict such pain is debatable. But whether they have a legal right to do so is no longer reasonably debatable, because the issue has been decided by the Court.
You appear to be thinking inside the box that's been handed to you. That mistake goes deeper than merely overestimating the role of SCOTUS in interpreting the US constitution. You oughtn't allow your notion of right and wrong to be dictated by someone's interpretation of legal documents, just as you oughtn't allow your notion of right and wrong to be dictated by someone's interpretation of religious documents.
Hello again, Pi zero!
>> overestimating the role of SCOTUS in interpreting the US constitution
How can one overstate absolute power? We can argue about what the law SHOULD BE, but the Supreme Court exclusively decides what it IS.
>> You oughtn't allow your notion of right and wrong to be dictated by someone's interpretation of legal documents
Two separate questions: Is WBC's speech method legal? Is it morally right? Note that I am talking about the speech method, not the viewpoint expressed.
>> just as you oughtn't allow your notion of right and wrong to be dictated by someone's interpretation of religious documents
Now we're switching to consideration of the viewpoint. I propose that we keep the two considerations separate, and on this thread, focus on the speech method employed by WBC. They aren't saying anything new. They are just saying it in a novel, high nuisance, way. What should the community's response be when a speaker uses a high nuisance, yet legal, method?
The attack on WBC is motivated by a dislike for, and a desire to silence, their viewpoint. All of this business about nuisance is just being used as a smoke screen to conceal what is really going on: violent intolerance of a speaker with an unpopular viewpoint.
If you think that's what SCOTUS does, you're —just as I said— thinking inside the box given to you. You seem to be inclined to think legalistically; that mode of thinking is, by definition, moving in a curved spacetime with no way out of the box.
You started this thread by using a legal argument to call WBC the "good guys".
What am I not seeing, Pi zero? Is there a logical flaw in my reasoning, or do you object to my conclusions because you would alter my logical starting point? If the box that you are referring to is logic and reason, then what is the benefit or potential of thinking outside of that box?
My sense of your posts is that you are squirming to escape my logic but are too intelligent to delude yourself into believing that you have done so.
No, you've misapprehended me. I'm free of your logic; I think I may have been subject to the legalistic illusion once upon a time, but if so, I moved past that phase decades ago. If I seem circumspect on this thread, it's partly because I've had too much experience with the impossibility of arguing someone out of an intellectual trap once they're stuck in it; one can offer opportunities for the trapped party to find their way out, but the initiative to take those opportunities has to come from them.
Since you ask, I'll offer just a few additional remarks.
You're trying to base your view of things on an absolute foundation that's built of sand. Human institutions, including governments, are all about give-and-take. The legalistic viewpoint, which I'm quite familiar with, is very like computer programming (which I'm also familiar with), but actual human society is not altogether like computer programming. It may seem a convenient approximation to pretend government regulates society from outside, but tragic consequences can follow from forgetting that government is itself part of society.
It's comparatively incidental that the US constitution doesn't give SCOTUS the power to decide what the constitution means; that it couldn't do so even if it tried, if one accepts that the power of the government devolves from the people; and that historically, SCOTUS maneuvered to establish precedent "giving" itself final say (within the government) over constitutional interpretation.
One way to say what I think you're saying without us insulting each other is to agree that debate and argument is feasible only if all participants are within the same "school of thought" or "religion". Communication in any form requires much commonality (language, world view, values, mores), and vigorous intellectual debate depends exceptionally heavily on what is shared.
Let us agree that we will debate nothing here, but only listen to each other. I will do that so that you might be edified and so that I might learn something.
Let's explore what you and I (and others here) have in common. My goal as an activist is to promote liberty and justice and economic empowerment for every human being on the planet. Liberty, justice, and empowerment are my core values. Do you also embrace those ideals / values?
An "activist"?
No, you're being an apologist for Westboro. The case you cite above has the Phelps family kept an 'almost-respectable' distance from the funeral procession, and that puts the Supreme Court in a position where they did not have much choice in their ruling.
That does not make what they do any more-acceptable.
The only thing that can be admired from outside the US looking in, is that there has not been dramatic physical violence against the Phelps for their , ... 'fucktardery'. They are a hate group, clothed in old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ.
Thank you for reading Snyder v. Phelps (2011).
>> An "activist"? No, you're being an apologist for Westboro.
This is just more name calling. It is disrespectful and distracting.
>> That does not make what they do any more-acceptable.
What makes it acceptable is that this is a contest between those who would speak and those who would silence them. In the U.S., more than in any other country in the world, it is recognized in law, if not by the general population, that the freedom to speak and for all to hear what would be spoken is the freedom upon which our entire system of liberty, justice, and self government is built. It is this logic that compels us, in the U.S., to say to those mourners, "Be strong. Stand strong. You, like us, must tolerate this speech, because speech cannot be silenced."
> They are a hate group
That is debatable. Even if it is true, it is irrelevant. In the U.S., speech that is motivated by hate is fully protected, as it should be. Creating a "hate speech" exclusion would have the practical effect of gutting the First Amendment of much of its protection of controversial speech.
Saying one is in favor of justice is saying nothing. Saying one is in favor of promoting justice is saying so nearly nothing that the difference is of little interest.
People with open minds can discuss issues with people of other schools of thought. The thing is, not all schools of thought cooperate. Some schools of thought are what one might call 'closed meme-sets', an interlocking net of ideas that ensnare their host (the person in whose mind the memes have entrenched themselves) by guiding their thinking into directions that will not dislodge the meme-set. Religions do this. So-called 'cult' religions are notorious for it (though one might say a religion is a cult with social respectability). Modern US extreme right-wing ideology has managed it too; while before the election liberals suspected conservatives of knowingly making up fake "facts", after the election it became apparent that conservatives had been unknowingly making up fake "facts".
Throughout history, some very intelligent people have been ensnared by closed meme-sets; it's that difficult to escape once one is caught. So I don't necessarily hold it against an individual that they have been ensnared.
The fight for liberty and for justice is real for me. I am essentially under house arrest. The two year anniversary of my imprisonment is coming up on Jan. 14. I am a political prisoner in the United States. I am imprisoned because I am a speaker of unpopular ideas that threaten significant local economic interests. There is nothing abstract about my personal fight for liberty, and in particular the freedom to speak. I have announced to government that I intend to organize a lawful revolt and that I have chosen Mountain View, California to be the "viral insertion point".
Your intelligent post pleases me, but I think that you overestimate the ability of any human being to escape the "school of thought" effect. In particular, your insinuation that I am ensnared but that you are not makes me chuckle.
Pi zero, don't weasel out of my question. Do you stand for liberty? In particular, do you stand for the freedom to speak? If you say, "no", I will not debate it. I just want to identify our common ground so that we can build a friendship upon it.
It would appear to me that Westboro's viewpoints are flexible. They — or at least, the people at the top — don't seem to truly believe that "god hates fags", but more that they're latching onto the most controversial viewpoint they can find, just to get the protests, in the hope that they can get a lawsuit out of it. They're not protesters; merely lawyers looking for a quick buck.
The possibilities that you present are excuses for an intolerant audience to use in rationalizing the decision to ignore the viewpoint being spoken. For our system of self government to work, all viewpoints must be heard, really heard, and then respectfully, vigorously, and intelligently considered and debated.
For example, Pi zero should concede that I have made my point successfully against his objections. That gesture would show me respect and would cost him nothing. If some other person here then thought that his concession was premature, that person could take up the boxing gloves and continue the attack on my argument.
I am 58 years old and I have spent a lifetime as a student of society. I am also a teacher. There is no shame in debating something with me, or anyone else, and then conceding defeat. For one who is wise, a debate is not really a contest at all; it is a banquet that all participants can, and should, enjoy.
The possibilities he suggests make perfect sense.
Let me present another: You're trolling in a well-mannered fashion; and, do not really, with any sort of conviction, hold the positions you're making a half-assed attempt to defend.
More insults, disrespect, and name calling. Part of your disrespect is that you misrepresent my post. I did not question those possibilities. I asserted that they are irrelevant and are of interest only because they allow an intolerant audience to rationalize dismissing what the speaker (WBC) is saying and to use violence to attempt to silence that speaker so that others cannot hear the viewpoint.
Regarding my sincerity, you can review the 350 pictures on IDEAFARM.COM home page which document the presentation of "An Unfinished Street Essay" in Mountain View, CA, for which I have been imprisoned (house arrest) for what will be two years as of Jan. 14. I am currently fighting for my freedom, for my right to resume presentation of the street essay, and for the rights of my audience to hear what I have to say. All of my speech equipment has been seized unreasonably and without a warrant and I have been gagged by the corrupt, "bought and paid for" local court.
Civil discourse goes both ways. It is interesting that you call the people who are upset about being told that the death of their loved ones is deserved because homosexuals exist in the military intolerant. It is more interesting that you think that the protesters have the right to do the same to people mourning the murder of their children because the state they live in happens to not discriminate against homosexuals. They have the legal right of course, on the other hand everyone else also has the legal right to tell them to shut up and go away. The hacking is simply a more direct way of doing so.
I am happy to debate people with diffrent viewpoints, I honestly find it fun. However, runninbg around with signs screaming at people is not debate, it's being cruel. Their actions cause their viewpoint to be ignored, not other people's intolerance. Also you don't seem to have any argument beyond you should debate all viewpoints, you have yet to address the issue of appropriate venue. They are not people pushed to the extremes by being silenced by the tyrannical majority. They are, well don't know wikinews decency standards so cannot use the correct works, massive jerks who raced to the ends of basic decency and respect because it gets people to pay more attention to them than to the noninsane people on this issue.
The "anti-queer"(choice of wording says quite alot about you) agenda is still going strong, everywhere you going you find people decrying homosexuality. The problem that you seem to ignore is that they are no longer the majority, their viewpoint was considered, debated, and it lost. If they could offer and argument beyond tradition or religion they would probably be more successful. If they have any actual evidence of harm to society they may have a point, but they do not. Tradition only goes back about 4 or 5 generations, if you only include major changes to marrige such as not allowed to marry outside of your race. If you include roles in marriage you only have to go back a 2 generations, if not less. And the religious argument runs into the issue of this is the USA, forcing your beliefs on someone is a rather big deal.
Oh, and just a thing about I noticed about your site. Maybe the courts would be nicer to you if you didn't keep parking illegaly, just a thought. From your demeanor you seem like someone who would 'make a rightous stand against the corrupt courts' and not pay his fines. Also, your last few picture have you set up next to, in front of, and surrounding a fire hydrant. That is also very illegal and tends, rightly, to piss off the fire department and police department.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply and for wading through all of my 350 pictures. In all of my posts here, I am looking at the issue from a First Amendment (freedom of speech) perspective. People are so upset about the "anti-queer" message and are then whipped up even more by the outrageously hurtful speech method employed, that the First Amendment essence seems to be lost in the smoke. My objective has been to encourage you to peer through the smoke to see the First Amendment stakes that are at risk.
Words are powerful. As a speaker, I do not allow my opposition to choose my vocabulary for me. I use "queer" for the same reason that the queer community uses it to refer to itself. "Queer" is the word that most accurately represents the meaning of the LGBT... acronym, which keeps getting longer as new subgroups are embraced.
A "queer" is someone who rejects the "marriage norm", which states the rights and duties of a mated male and female and then goes on to say that all should marry, i.e. that it is morally wrong to not conform.
No one conforms completely to the marriage norm. Masturbation is a nearly universal behavior; only the most disciplined individuals have a chance of dying without ever having done it. Masturbation is queer sexuality; it is prohibited by the marriage norm. So almost everyone is queer; some people are just more queer than others.
Even queers agree that some sexual behavior is perverted. So the issue isn't whether it is wrong to be queer. The real issue is that we need to agree on which sexual behaviors are to be deemed acceptable.
I speak this with authority, because I AM A QUEER.
Queer in regards to sexuality still has fairly negative connotations, it has never meant a regection of marriage norm. The use from the LGBT community is an attempt to 'retake the word,' much like some in the african american community are trying to do to nigger. The problen is that the word does not really apply to the use they have, they are literally trying to change the actual meaning.
Anyway, the reference to the marriage norm assumes such a thing exists, which it does. Problematically, it is diffrent for every subculture. So declaring something as opposing the norm assumes that you know what the norm is and that is is a constant. It evolves as the cultures/subcultures evolve, any declaration of a constant simply shows a lack of understanding of society.
And, honestly, why? Why should we deem certain sexual behaviors acceptable or not? What gives the uninvolved the right to say that that act over there is immoral? As long as the rights of the participants are not being violated, unwillingly, why shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they like?
Oh, and this is not a First Amendment issue, the Bill of Rights declares that, quoting from wiki, "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." Anonymous is not congress, they are making no laws. If congress declared it illegal to picket, then the amendment would be relevent. Unless it would fall under the same provision as yelling fire in a theatre, which in this case it would. If they go to these funerals and hold up their signs and scream about how they deserved this to the parents who have just have their children murdered, they will be attacked. Not with words or mockery, their picketing of anime/gaming conventions gives them plenty of that. But physically assaulted and possibly killed. And, honestly, nobody will mourn for them. If someone walks up to a tiger and kicks it in the head you don't feel sorry for them, you feel sorry for the tiger who may be put down.
My understanding is that queers use the word "queer" to refer to themselves as a community when they want to emphasize apartness or differentness. When they want to communicate the meme "being queer is ok; it's just a lifestyle choice" they use the term "gay" and try to force everyone else to use the term "gay". Both of these considerations lead me to use the term "queer". Forcing everyone to use the term "gay" effectively silences the memes that are communicated by the word "queer". Hate is not one of those memes.
My understanding is that every human culture has defined the rights and duties of a mated male and female and used symbols, stories, and ritual to codify, preserve, and pass this "programming" along from generation to generation. Although there are cross cultural variations, enough is common that it is useful to speak of "the" marriage norm. The norm exists because the need for it was universal; the need springs from the fact that when a male and a female couple, children issue forth. Human groups that developed "mating rules" had a competitive advantage because males would need to spend less energy engaging in sperm competition and defending territory (females) and could thus allocate more energy to production and conquest.
Every reasonable person, including the most queer among us, agrees that some sexual behaviors must be deemed perverted, i.e. unacceptable. Necrophilia and pedophilia come to mind as examples. But the marriage norm is primarily concerned, so my reasoning goes, with imposing order upon male-female couples in order to maximize the competitive strength of the tribe / group.
I am a libertarian, so I am inclined toward your thinking. Also, my vision for the future of the United States is a libertarian one in terms of what you do in the bedroom. But liberty includes the freedom to speak, and the freedom to speak includes the freedom to rebuke. It is through rebuke that the norms of society evolve. It is possible that the best outcome is the abolishment of all norms, i.e. children and adults are told by society that "anything goes". But my opinion is that society needs norms. If society needs norms, then people who choose to violate those norms will have to accept the disapproval of the community. If we retain the norms, we must decide what those norms should be, and we must decide how they will be enforced / promoted.
You raised many interesting points. Regarding your last one, speaking unpopular viewpoints is dangerous and requires courage. Speakers are heroes. Those who silence harm not only the speaker but also all who have a right to hear what would have been spoken. When viewpoints are silenced, the civic conversation is robbed of its vigor, and any consensus that emerges loses its legitimacy. For this reason, no speaker should EVER be silenced. Every viewpoint, no matter how obnoxious, contributes to the vitality and legitimacy of the outcome of the conversation.