EDITORIAL: Free speech - even for idiots

What about racial slurs? are they protected?

Do they not know that freedom of speech works both ways?

It's sad that this church is speaking for GOD and misrepresenting HIM. Does God hate sin? Yes. Does he hate homosexuality? Yes, because it destroys people's lives and souls, but God loves the sinners. God desires to save those who are lost and in bondage to sin and sinful lifestyles of any kind. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet 3:9. God loves all sinners and desires to save their souls not to condemn them like this church is doing. This church is taking the place of God and they themselves will be judged for misrepresenting HIM as a people hater instead of a peopl lover that HE truly is.

I find it difficult to understand how you, along with other "journalists", can speak in such a detached way when real human suffering is being caused by such hate mongering. I hope I'm around to read your column if you should happen to, God forbid, lose a child. To assault a parent on the worst day of their life is not the America our founding fathers envisioned. It makes me ill to see the lack of commonsense the Supreme Court exercises. However, I am glad to live in a country where I can exercise my right to express these thoughts in a public forum. Oh, and fuck you.

I can see from my last post, that you do not agree with the concept of free speech. Please do not edit my posts. You come to the aid of the Westboro Baptist Church, but deny me my rights. Try to practice what you preach and print my post in it's entirety. You might not like what I have to say, but it's my right to say it. Oh, and fuck you. And I mean that sincerely.

I find it unbelievable that your editors support the Westboro Baptist Church but can deny this individual my right to free speech. I can only assume bigotry and hatred are acceptable to your publication, but individual rights mean nothing. I will stop reading your site in the future and encourage others to do the same. I will, however, continue to leave comments as a way to try to exercise my right to free speech. My comments might not make much sense without first reading the article, but then again, your well thought out editorials don’t make much sense either. Oh, and fuck you.

Patriot, I feel your pain. It's ridiculous to verbally abuse people while they are mourning the loss of a precious soldier that sacrificed all for his/her country. I don't have the words to describe how far these people are from representing GOD. Their signs saying God hates, hates, hates... That's not the real God/Jesus I know personally. Those soldiers' families should be honored and comforted not abused. These people at that Hate Church are not real Christians. They seem to be filled with hatred. They are not far from KKK based on their stand on issues.

Will the York Dispatch crusade in favor of Rev. Jim Grove entering a float of "Dr. Butcher's Horror Shop of Choice Cuts" in the next Halloween parade?

There is a certain hypocrisy in that it is not legal to use racial, or sexist, epithets, but it is acceptable to say what Westboro says...at least according to our courts, and this paper. Interestingly, a hate crime is defined as follows: Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation. It seems to me that an argument should have been made that a member of the military, and their families, are in essence a political group, and therefore the actions of Westboro were, in fact, a hate crime.

I admit I am the father of a son in the military, but even so, I think it is fairly evident that in order to be considered a protected group, there has to be political clout. Sadly, our military and the families of the military, do not have it.

By the way, a newspaper is a private company, and has the right to decide what is, or is not, appropriate within its pages. However, I just shake my head at the fact that I can decide not to pick up a paper, and protect myself from something I do not want to read, but the families of our sons and daughters who have given their lives have no such choice in avoiding the words of the Westboro Church.

Jehovah's Witnesses pursued court decisions to get in your face at the door steps,these same actions uphold rights of infamous hate church.
----
Danny Haszard http://alturl.com/bpnp
my page more on Jehovah's Witnesses harassment

We do have limits on our free speech: a person is open to arrest for shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists.

I agree totally with you "Sad", what the so-called Westboro Baptists protests are meet the definition of Hate crime completely. They have chosen to single out a specific group of victims; namely family, friends, and colleagues grieving the death and attending funerary proceedings of United States Military personal; and then subjecting said group to demeaning abuse through visual, verbal, and media means.

They lawyer for the plaintiff must not have made this explicitly clear to the Justices, though I have not read any of the proceedings, or the Justices had their minds made up and slept through the pleadings.

The Westboro outfit is no more a church than any gathering of relatives at a family reunion. It is long past time that an investigation of this group is commenced; let their finances be reviewed as well as their stated activities and compare this to their tax status. As 'Joe Black' so simply stated: "...I'm from the I.R.S.-Death & Taxes."

Our Grand Republic will (and is) being torn asunder by extremist rhetoric. Sanity and Rational must be reasserted into our social discussion. Remember Westboro Pastor: So Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap and a question: are all your male descendants of legal age registered for Selective Service?

patriot wrote:

I find it difficult to understand how you, along with other "journalists", can speak in such a detached way when real human suffering is being caused by such hate mongering. I hope I'm around to read your column if you should happen to, God forbid, lose a child. To assault a parent on the worst day of their life is not the America our founding fathers envisioned. It makes me ill to see the lack of commonsense the Supreme Court exercises. However, I am glad to live in a country where I can exercise my right to express these thoughts in a public forum. Oh, and fuck you.

The problem with the Westboro case is not in deciding whether or not it was reprehensible...it obviously is.

The problem is in deciding WHO gets to say what is reprehensible.

SAD, I agree with you completely; you make your case very eloquently. Our family is in circumstances similar to yours with family serving overseas and I am outraged at the hypocrisy that is so evident at the top. Military men and women serve the American people, and the Courts in turn thumb their judicial noses at the grieving family. And Congress does the same thing by using tax dollars to pay civilian contractors big bucks for doing the same job as our service men and women. It’s all so thoughtless and very insulting. At the very least, some dignity and a proper burial is owed to those that have sacrificed everything.

“Eristotal wrote: The problem with the Westboro case is not in deciding whether or not it was reprehensible...it obviously is.
The problem is in deciding WHO gets to say what is reprehensible.”

It’s not even the deciding of WHO, it’s the deciding of WHEN. A person has one birth and one death. No one, not even the Godlike Supreme Court, should interfere with the laying to rest of a departed child, sister, brother, husband or wife- there are so many other forums available for protest the WBC can exploit. The issue isn’t about silencing the WBC and removing their right to express their views- no one takes them seriously anyway- it’s about simple human decency and understanding at a very difficult time.

patriot wrote:

“Eristotal wrote: The problem with the Westboro case is not in deciding whether or not it was reprehensible...it obviously is.
The problem is in deciding WHO gets to say what is reprehensible.”
It’s not even the deciding of WHO, it’s the deciding of WHEN. A person has one birth and one death. No one, not even the Godlike Supreme Court, should interfere with the laying to rest of a departed child, sister, brother, husband or wife- there are so many other forums available for protest the WBC can exploit. The issue isn’t about silencing the WBC and removing their right to express their views- no one takes them seriously anyway- it’s about simple human decency and understanding at a very difficult time.

Scotus doesn't adjudicate morality.

Your emotions are obscuring your reason.

Eristotle wrote:

<quoted text>
Scotus doesn't adjudicate morality.
Your emotions are obscuring your reason.

Eristotle-
My emotions are what make me human- what are you?

Eristotle wrote:

<quoted text>
Scotus doesn't adjudicate morality.
Your emotions are obscuring your reason.

Aristotle-
This is not intended as a personal dig. You look at things with reason, I look at things tempered with emotion, and our supposed “Supreme” Court looks at things politically. And cranks like WBC are the ones that benefit!

Disregard emotions.Disregard politics.How about common sense and respect.The brain can function in a logical fashion without the fear of onesself.
Why is everyone afraid to stand up for what is right? Is it wrong to stand up for what is right?
Our society in spineless,when they allow such vulgar treatment of their fellow man.

Sad wrote:

There is a certain hypocrisy in that it is not legal to use racial, or sexist, epithets, but it is acceptable to say what Westboro says...at least according to our courts, and this paper. Interestingly, a hate crime is defined as follows: Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation. It seems to me that an argument should have been made that a member of the military, and their families, are in essence a political group, and therefore the actions of Westboro were, in fact, a hate crime.
I admit I am the father of a son in the military, but even so, I think it is fairly evident that in order to be considered a protected group, there has to be political clout. Sadly, our military and the families of the military, do not have it.
By the way, a newspaper is a private company, and has the right to decide what is, or is not, appropriate within its pages. However, I just shake my head at the fact that I can decide not to pick up a paper, and protect myself from something I do not want to read, but the families of our sons and daughters who have given their lives have no such choice in avoiding the words of the Westboro Church.

Hate speech and hate crimes are not the same thing. It most certainly is legal to use racial or sexist epithets. While there are limits on speech, vis-à-vis, defamation, slander, threats, simply calling someone a derogatory name is not against the law.
See: American Booksellers v. Hudnut and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.

Neither members of the military, nor any other group is entitled to special protections that would infringe on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, no matter how offensive or vile that speech is deemed to be. It is that principle that led the Court to its decision in Snyder v. Phelps.

Whether or not you agree with the decision is your business, but the Constitutional issue involved was correctly assessed.

patriot wrote:

<quoted text>
Eristotle-
My emotions are what make me human- what are you?

Emotions have no constitutional protection.