The 1st annual D-Bag Award

[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

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

Who threatened violence?

[Malacite]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

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.

Sorry, but I have to side with the late George Carlin on this one. There are no such things as "rights". What we have is a system of privileges, and as such they ought to be restricted or taken away in certain scenarios such as this. There's a fine line between saying whatever's on your mind, however crazy it may be, and hate speech and IMO this really crosses the line much like the idiots comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler (but let's not get into that shall we).

I'm not calling for any sort of thought police, but I do believe some restrictions ought to apply (or rather more I should say, there are limits to free speech as it is) in cases of gross insensitivity or what have you. The way I see it, if you really hate America so much, get out of the fucking country because there's no shortage of people who want to be there, some desperately so.

[Cryxen]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Free speech is a right rooted in the socialist dictate that we are all equal.

Capitalism says we can rise above our peers.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

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.

You're forgetting baiting. Bait doesn't work if you don't take it, though.

In case of some people these days any peaceful, non-violent standpoint that disagrees with their views could lead to violence and is somehow magically racist. This is why Washington scrambles desperately to lie and label peaceful protesters as racists when their baiting fails to do anything. Its also why employers now text, phone or email you about getting laid off - they never got to know you and, as such, don't know how you'd take it. They fear confrontation and potential reprisal even if none would take place.

Its a worrying time, really.

When you think about how the abortion issue alone dampened our right to protest, it gave politicians on both sides license to push our voice further away from it getting to them. All for their emotional convenience, really. All so they don't have to look a genuinely upset dissenter in the eye.

It sure as hell isn't to prevent violence. Drawing a line and telling people to stand further away does not prevent people who intend to be violent from violent acts. That's not to say I'd want WBC right there breathing down the backs of people attending a funeral, but I seriously worry about what WBC does and how it might affect the future of protesters with genuine issues and how they're allowed to express themselves.

I almost feel as though WBC's real agenda is to further impede our right to protest, because again, they're too well funded and what they say is too damn stupid to be real.

[Kailea]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

"The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters' legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a "slap in the face.""


The hell is wrong with the judge that made that retarded ass ruling? I would refuse to pay -.-

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

That's the real problem. The father shouldn't have to pay their fees. They clearly have money and they don't need his. If they believe so deeply that it was a free speech issue that they could spend money on lawyers, they could just eat the costs on the merit of their supposed cause.

Money is a form of speech, too, but if you're going to to spend it for the license to be a shithead, pay it yourself.

The fact that the judge is making the father pay the fees says a lot about the insensitivity of the judge. A good judge would have upheld free speech, but stiffed WBC with their own bill.

[Malacite]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

On that note, the father is taking his case to the Supreme Court who will hopefully turn it back in his favor as this is just beyond asinine.

In case of some people these days any peaceful, non-violent standpoint that disagrees with their views could lead to violence and is somehow magically racist.

Taking this just a bit far aren't we? Yeah some are quick to throw that label out and wrongfully so, but there's been a lot of disturbing protests with regards to Obama by the Tea Party folks (who IMO are just as if not more retarded than the WBC people.)

They have a lot of legitimate concerns but they also talk a lot of bullshit they really know nothing about. I for one hope Palin winds up being their leader. At least that way they'll never have a chance of gaining any real power. Just to cite one example, last I checked you folks still had it pretty good down there. Yes, a lot of people are hurting (to the point where I quite frankly can't believe a civil war against the super rich hasn't broken out. How much longer are you going to let them stick it up your ass?) but to say that you're under tyranny is pushing it rather far. King George's reign was tyranny. What you're going through is larsony on a grand scale which really should be inciting some form of open revolt.

Not against Obama (he really is on your side, even if it might not look it to some) but against congress. Throw 'em all out. Every god damned last one of 'em and it would probably do the country a world of good to impose term limits on Senators. Why is that at every other level of government, including the presidency, there are strict term limits except for the guys in charge of all the God damned money? While you're at it, abolish the Federal Reserve. It's nothing more than a tool for the Rich to stay rich (thank you Robert Kiyosaki for that insight) The politicians have been having a field day for who knows how long now. Why else would the Right so fervently defend a medical system that is skewed towards wealthy individuals such as themselves. Even Hillary Clinton, with her posturing over the issue was eventually bought out by the insurance industries back in the 90's. What you guys got was health care "reform" (if you can call it that) a step in the right direction but nowhere near far enough. Last I checked you guys actually fell down another spot to 37th world wide in terms of cost efficiency. The system does work great and provides quality care, if you can afford it.


/soapbox


EDIT: One last point - Didn't Rush Limbaugh say he'd leave the country if health care passed? I'm still waiting, asshole.

[Grizzlebeard]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

I'm surprised their haven't been a group of individuals who organise themselves to attend soldiers' funerals who would calmly surround or otherwise obscure the WBC members from the vision of the mourners and drown out their protests with shouts of support and gratitude. Of course a funeral is generally a solemn affair you wouldn't want to hear shouting at but it sures beats the alternative and you're peacefully exercising your freedom of speech. I'd imagine there are far more people out there who find the actions of the WBC disgusting than those who support them.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Taking this just a bit far aren't we? Yeah some are quick to throw that label out and wrongfully so, but there's been a lot of disturbing protests with regards to Obama by the Tea Party folks (who IMO are just as if not more retarded than the WBC people.)

Then I'm very sure you can supply some pictures, audio/video of it. We can produce it for WBC because its clearly out there and it happens. They have a website full of their propaganda.

But there's not much besides hearsay to pin on the Tea Party. Sure, I'm sure there's someone with a sign that paints Obama is Hitler or something, but that's any movement. Godwin's Law at work. He's been painted as the Joker and called a Socialist. Is that disturbing? Its been done with Bush and Hillary Clinton, too. Nothing new there.

Surely, if you have something disturbing, you can share it. I mean, if its common knowledge and this evidence is everywhere, so out with it. I'm sure I would have seen in on CNN or Youtube by now, but I haven't.

They have a lot of legitimate concerns but they also talk a lot of bullshit they really know nothing about. I for one hope Palin winds up being their leader.

And you just exposed the fact you know nothing about this group. They are not party-afflilated and not really a centralized movement. They are Republcans, Independants and Democrats that are not happy with the excess spending, taxing and the shameless shredding of the Constitution. There are a lot of conservatives there, sure, but they're not exactly enamored with the Republicans we have because they've been part of the problem since before the Democrats continued the problem.

That's what they don't like. The spending, because it will lead to more taxes.

The "Tea Party Express" is Palin's little splinter group and they like her, but most people could give a rip about her, especially since she started backing McCain for re-election in Arizona. Mostly, the Tea Parties are just a bunch of independent groups that protest locally much more than they gather in DC.

They were inspired by something that started small and its gained lots of traction. Quite frankly, they're getting their message and issues out there and more effectively than Washington and the media are. Not that the media can do much anymore - they have the internet, blogs, podcasts and radio and consider them superior options to the print and televised media.

They are looking for politicans that will stop the spending, repeal the unsavory parts of HRC and bring real reform, and lower taxes for everyone. When everyone has more money to spend, more money goes into the economy. Its not rocket science. Republicans lost touch with the concept, but democrats never had that concept.

EDIT: One last point - Didn't Rush Limbaugh say he'd leave the country if health care passed? I'm still waiting, asshole.

No, he said he'd go to Coasta Rica for Health Care if HRC passed, he's apparently since found other options that might be better for him.

[Cometgreen]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

Oh how I'd love to see how long these assholes would last inside Iran ... See how much you hate the troops then, assholes.

...What? Have we invaded Iran now?

Sorry, but I have to side with the late George Carlin on this one. There are no such things as "rights".

This might indeed be true (I see "rights" as nothing but a social convention), but is quite irrelevant because the legal system of the United States does indeed grant the "right" to free speech on public property. Perhaps the government ought to change its policy regarding speech on its property, but we certainly can't claim the judge's decision was wrong from a legal perspective. Indeed, if we see the government's claim on the property as legitimate, the First Amendment creates the right to say whatever you want while standing on public property. For the government, as property owner, to punish you for your speech on that property would be a breach of contract.

What we have is a system of privileges, and as such they ought to be restricted or taken away in certain scenarios such as this. There's a fine line between saying whatever's on your mind, however crazy it may be, and hate speech and IMO this really crosses the line much like the idiots comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler (but let's not get into that shall we).

I'm not calling for any sort of thought police, but I do believe some restrictions ought to apply (or rather more I should say, there are limits to free speech as it is) in cases of gross insensitivity or what have you.

Again, I don't believe that natural rights exist, but this doesn't make your suggestions any less vulgar and monstrous. You truly believe insensitivity warrants a violent response? You don't believe speech ought to be protected? It would be difficult to lay down a consistently liberal code of ethics while arguing that speech you don't like ought to be restricted.

The concept of 'free speech' does not exist to protect perfectly agreeable speech. It was created and promoted to protect unpopular speech, arguably reflecting the consensus that mere speech is not violent and therefore does not warrant a violent response.

The way I see it, if you really hate America so much, get out of the fucking country because there's no shortage of people who want to be there, some desperately so.

Do they hate America? Besides, what is objectionable about wanting to change your country? Why don't all who disagree with the WBC get out of the fucking country?

The father shouldn't have to pay their fees. They clearly have money and they don't need his.

Why? Because you dislike the WBC and feel they have enough money anyway? Does that not bastardize the entire concept of the rule of law?

If they believe so deeply that it was a free speech issue that they could spend money on lawyers, they could just eat the costs on the merit of their supposed cause.

I'm sorry, what? They did not initiate the legal battle; the father brought them to court and forced them into paying thousands of dollars so as to defend themselves.

The fact that the judge is making the father pay the fees says a lot about the insensitivity of the judge. A good judge would have upheld free speech, but stiffed WBC with their own bill.

Again, I must ask: WTF? Let's say I accuse you of sexual harassment, thereby dragging you into the state's court system and forcing you to spend money to mount a defense. You win the case*; it's determined you did not injure me at all. Do you believe you should have to eat the money you paid to defend yourself against my spurious claim?

*of course, the comparison should be that I win the case and, being threatened with having to compensate me for my supposed injuries, you appeal to a higher court

to say that you're under tyranny is pushing it rather far. King George's reign was tyranny.

This is obviously open to debate, as we first have to settle on a definition of tyranny, but I would say the federal government of the US is far more powerful and intrusive than the British government circa 1770. I would gladly welcome the political system of 1770s colonial America. Taxes were being cut by the British, political power was largely decentralized... it doesn't sound too shabby.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

First off, Mal, I pulled this off Google Trends, from a news paper. Show me what's "disturbing."

Signs from Tea Party rallies - baltimoresun.com

I'm sorry, what? They did not initiate the legal battle; the father brought them to court and forced them into paying thousands of dollars so as to defend themselves.

There is law and there there is common sense and dignity. These people don't have to come out and picket funerals. What are they protesting? Nothing, they are there to bring grief and slander the dead. Slander and celebrate the loss of another.

You might have a right to an opinion, but should you be rewarded or compensated when everyone knows you're an asshole that's just going to be a public nuisance again?

If I don't like what Chris Matthews or Bill O'Rilley says, I can just turn them off. If I'm a business I can just pull my ads and see they get no revenue. But who in history outside of WBC has gone out and technically crashed funerals?

I'm actually with Grizzlebeard on this one, I'll take it up one, though. I say we give our soldiers something in the vein of a New Orleans funeral. If these jerks want to throw a party, at least those attending get louder and have more fun. Drown the fuckers out.

[Feba]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

There's a fine line between saying whatever's on your mind, however crazy it may be, and hate speech and IMO this really crosses the line much like the idiots comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler

Indeed. But here's the thing: Hate Speech is entirely legal in the US. The Supreme Court has overruled plenty of anti-Hate Speech laws. Despicable as it might be, I have the right to compare Obama to Hitler if I feel like. I even have the right to say that anyone that supported HCR supports murdering babies. I suggest you take your own advice, Mal: If you don't like America, leave. The right to say stupid, insensitive, inflammatory shit is a right granted to all Americans well over two centuries ago.

but I seriously worry about what WBC does and how it might affect the future of protesters with genuine issues and how they're allowed to express themselves.

Exactly, this is the thing here-- I'm arguing in favor of the WBC. That's playing Devil's Advocate if anyone ever has. I don't like supporting their actions, and the outcome of this lawsuit, from the perspective of an individual. But from a societal perspective, someone has to stand up and say "You know what? These guys are dicks, but the legality of this is perfectly correct". It's the whole 'first they came for the communists' thing-- if we allow rights to be taken away from the WBC, we're writing a blank check with legal precedent that would likely allow rights to be taken away from lots of unpopular groups.

On that note, the father is taking his case to the Supreme Court who will hopefully turn it back in his favor as this is just beyond asinine.

In taking it to the supreme court, he's just getting himself in for larger pain. The chances of the Supreme Court saying "You know what? Protests that annoy people are now punishable" is just ridiculously low. I've seen plenty of inflammatory protests; they're like that for a reason: They want the attention for their cause. That's the entire point of protesting.

I like Grizzlebeard's idea in one sense, but in another think that even better than drowning them out, it would be best to just ignore them as much as possible. I frankly don't see how people can have this get to them at funerals-- you might as well go up to me at a funeral and tell me that the dead was made out of hard candy. It's just too ridiculous to take seriously at all. I think it's better to just completely ignore groups like this; they're not doing anyone any physical or financial harm (unlike other cults, such as Scientology), they rarely bring in converts, so the most they do is brainwash their children (unfortunately, can't call it child abuse without risking any religious teachings the mainstream doesn't approve of being child abuse). They're despicable, but ultimately will implode on themselves. Like the USSR, the best strategy is containment and waiting, not direct confrontation.

[Kailea]

Re: The 1st annual D-Bag Award

I'm surprised their haven't been a group of individuals who organise themselves to attend soldiers' funerals who would calmly surround or otherwise obscure the WBC members from the vision of the mourners and drown out their protests with shouts of support and gratitude. Of course a funeral is generally a solemn affair you wouldn't want to hear shouting at but it sures beats the alternative and you're peacefully exercising your freedom of speech. I'd imagine there are far more people out there who find the actions of the WBC disgusting than those who support them.

that kind of happened down here where I live, we had a funeral for a soldier, and this group wanted to protest at it... a Biker group stood guard outside the funeral, and the protest group could do nothing ;p