Hillsboro Baptist in Moore / Norman?

[stoopified]

My wife just told me she heard them ASSHATS ARE IN NORMAN TO PICKET SURVIVORS STAYING ON CAMPUS AND WERE PLANNING TO PICKET FUNERALS INCLUDING THE CHILDREN. hOPE THIS IS NOT TRUE BUT i CAN GUARANTEE YOU IF i MEET ONE OF THEM BASTIDS i'LL PROABLY END UP IN JAIL.PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS JUST A NASTY RUMOR.

[8timechamps]

This just pissed me off.

Someone please beat the **** out of these fools.

[rock on sooner]

If it is true (and I'm betting they'll show up) slash tires, put up
tall walls, make sure they have permits. Phelps and his bunch
really should be jailed BUT the 1st Amendment is wrapped around
them. Don't let the MF'ers, I mean, ANYTHING!

[CatfishSooner]

What the F is their problem...geez

[MsProudSooner]

Half the time, they don't show up when they threaten to. Maybe this will be one of those times.

[Soonerfan88]

Fred Jr tweeted it was God's punishment because the OKC Thunder & community supported Jason Collins' coming out. I would dearly love to get those F'ers in a dark corner and make sure there were no witnesses.

[SicEmBaylor]

I would very much enjoy seeing them severely beaten.

[cleller]

Hopefully, those kooks have now realized people are not putting up with their crap in this part of the country. They should be ignored by city officials where they visit, and let the public regulate them.

If I'm remembering right from OU policy (after 30 years), their position is that the campus is NOT public property, but rather University property where anyone can be made to leave if they are not there for an acceptable reason. So, people that are non-students or uninvited can be told to leave, and arrested for trespassing if they refuse.

[sooner_born_1960]

I think you all are talking about Westboro.

[cleller]

I think you all are talking about Westboro.

Oh yeah, isn't Hillsboro the little Baptist college on I-35?

[sooner_born_1960]

Oh yeah, isn't Hillsboro the little Baptist college on I-35?

Yeah. I think so. Or, Bible College.

[stoopified]

I think you all are talking about Westboro.You are right,ny bad. It shows the disdain held for them thst even improperly identified people react with appropriate disgust.

[badger]

Background: They've hated Oklahoma (even more than they hate other states and other things, apparently) because a few of our fellow Oklahomans decided to slash their tires during a soldier funeral they were protesting in McAlester.

Linkage (http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Westboro_protesters_face_jeers_and_slashed_tires/20101114_11_a12_cutlin105145) (via Tulsa World)

They have tried to protest Oklahoma every chance they get since. An OSU sports talk radio show offered them 5 minutes of uninterrupted airtime in exchange for them not coming to the funeral of the OSU basketball coaches that died in the plane crash a few years ago.

But, I suspect there are some Internet shenanigans afoot. Read this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/westboro-baptist-church-slam_n_3324292.html). (via Huffington Post)

There are no notices of Westboro protests in Oklahoma. I do not think they are that stupid. Stupid, yes, but not THAT stupid

[SoonerStormchaser]

Btw...if something ever happens to me in the line of duty and those MoFos show up, you all have my permission to beat them into next week!

[badger]

Btw...if something ever happens to me in the line of duty and those MoFos show up, you all have my permission to beat them into next week!

The way I see it and what I'll tell my grieving family/friends (if I have any left by then) is that if they're wasting their time and resources coming to my funeral, then they won't be at another's. :)

[SoonerStormchaser]

The way I see it and what I'll tell my grieving family/friends (if I have any left by then) is that if they're wasting their time and resources coming to my funeral, then they won't be at another's. :)

Well, I'm not going to be the one who is grieving enough only to have those ****ers show up and pour salt in the wound.

[badger]

Well, I'm not going to be the one who is grieving enough only to have those ****ers show up and pour salt in the wound.

When my non-human best friend since grade school had to be put down (health reasons, really bad diabetes) while I was away in college, I knew that my mom was bracing for me to start bawling on the phone when she delivered the news that she had to go to the vet later that day.

So, I convinced her that I was OK with the decision, since I knew my dear little furry friend a wonderful life and was a wonderful cat.

I don't know if my act worked or not.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hopefully, those kooks have now realized people are not putting up with their crap in this part of the country. They should be ignored by city officials where they visit, and let the public regulate them.

If I'm remembering right from OU policy (after 30 years), their position is that the campus is NOT public property, but rather University property where anyone can be made to leave if they are not there for an acceptable reason. So, people that are non-students or uninvited can be told to leave, and arrested for trespassing if they refuse.

OU is taxpayer funded and is public property, end of story. OU belongs to the taxpayers. I hate the Westboro Baptist Church, but restricting free-speech and writing legislation that clearly has the intent of targeting one group of people is just wrong.

I would be very very pissed off to find out that OU holds the position that its property is university property and not public property.

[cleller]

OU is taxpayer funded and is public property, end of story. OU belongs to the taxpayers. I hate the Westboro Baptist Church, but restricting free-speech and writing legislation that clearly has the intent of targeting one group of people is just wrong.

I would be very very pissed off to find out that OU holds the position that its property is university property and not public property.

I think you're going to be pissed off, then. I guess its a common misconception that university property is open to the public at all times. OU is partly funded by taxpayers, but also by students.

I worked for OUPD in a non-sworn position while I was a student. I can tell you with certainty that the OUPD can direct persons who are non-students to leave the campus, if they refuse, they can be arrested. If they return within 6 months, they can be arrested again, without warning.

http://newsok.com/ou-deals-with-trespassing-issue/article/2801197

If you're there to visit properly, no one would care. If not a student, though, there are good reasons why people should not be free to roam the halls of classroom buildings, dorms, etc especially if they are acting like a fool while doing it. Students are paying big money to be there, and don't have to put up with it. There are plenty of places that are technically owned by a public entity, but the public cannot just walk thru anytime they want. Airports, state office buildings, schools, area 51....

[starclassic tama]

all this outrage just feeds into their reason for existing. they are gigantic attention whores/trolls, and the anger and outrage just makes them more famous and relevant. they aren't even offensive, the stuff they say and put on signs doesn't even make sense. if everyone would just ignore them then they would have no clout whatsoever and disappear but that isn't going to happen.

[stoopified]

For ANYONE who might want to give these yahoos a wan Oklahoma welcome,they are staying at the Norman Comfort Inn.

[cleller]

For ANYONE who might want to give these yahoos a wan Oklahoma welcome,they are staying at the Norman Comfort Inn.

Please pass this on to your neighborhood Hells Angels, Al Qaeda, Sharks, Jets clubs.

[badger]

For ANYONE who might want to give these yahoos a wan Oklahoma welcome,they are staying at the Norman Comfort Inn.

oh shhhh... THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS?!

Seriously, we are NOT a bleeding heart state! We are NOT going to rigorously enforce freedom of speech laws or your right to protest when our public safety officials are trying to keep looters out of survivors' homes! We are NOT going to be able to cart you off to the hospital when our health officials are busy doling out tetanus shots!

...in other words, this might be the event that finally ends Westboro???

[SoonerStormchaser]

For ANYONE who might want to give these yahoos a wan Oklahoma welcome,they are staying at the Norman Comfort Inn.

Why did that hotel even allow them to stay there in the first place?

[badger]

Why did that hotel even allow them to stay there in the first place?

They probably didn't file the reservation under "Phelps" and "Topeka, Kan."

By now, they're probably filing it under Wealthy Family That Tips Well from Suburbia.

[Boomer.....]

This morning at the First Baptist Church in Moore. People blocking both sides of the drive as the people pull up and not a word yet from the protestors.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7421/93616010200170468797662.jpg

[TheHumanAlphabet]

If they come out, Okies should do what Pasadenians (?) did to Qannel X (Q-tip) did to protest a Castle doctrine shooting in Pasadena to some illegal black folks... He was there to make a statement and the Pasadena red-necks got out their Harley's and drove and parked near them and throttled their engines everytime they tried to speak. drowned them and their speakerphone out...They soon gave up and went away, not to return...

[Boomer.....]

Word is that Westboro didn't show. I also read that their cars were blocked in at the hotel they were staying.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Well, I hope the hotel people provided intel on the cars so people could block them in... Good one.

[diverdog]

We showed them a good time in Delaware when they protested a fallen Marines funeral.

BZGKx2pTBQc

[badger]

Well, I hope the hotel people provided intel on the cars so people could block them in... Good one.

I heard that Mississippi pulled this trick off --- all they had to do was find the Kansas plates :)

[badger]

Probably not true because it's on twitter, but Westboro got arrested allegedly reportedly (http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/05/did-westboro-baptist-church-just-get-arrested-in-oklahoma//)

[KantoSooner]

I know it's old, but hasn't anyone ever taken to just shoving random junk up the tailpipes of their cars? Fruits and veg work well but a good bit of it's the quantity rather than the quality. Rolled up newspapers soaked in water are an artistic touch. Makes the drive back to Kansas take a little longer.


WHERE ARE THE JUNVENILE DELINQUINTS OF TODAY?

I tell ya, the heroic slackers and potheads of yesteryear wouldn't have sat still for this.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I would bet that the expandable spray foam would do just fine...

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm as bothered by the cavalier attitude some people have toward other people's constitutional rights as I am by bottom dwelling pond scum that exercises those rights.

[diverdog]

I know it's old, but hasn't anyone ever taken to just shoving random junk up the tailpipes of their cars? Fruits and veg work well but a good bit of it's the quantity rather than the quality. Rolled up newspapers soaked in water are an artistic touch. Makes the drive back to Kansas take a little longer.


WHERE ARE THE JUNVENILE DELINQUINTS OF TODAY?

I tell ya, the heroic slackers and potheads of yesteryear wouldn't have sat still for this.

kanto:

In Delaware they get police escorts. One of the 1%er bike gangs have threatened them and as a result taxpayers foot the bill for their protection.

[cleller]

Yeah, where are delinquents when you need them? Kids can only pull off stunts on video games now.

[diverdog]

I'm as bothered by the cavalier attitude some people have toward other people's constitutional rights as I am by bottom dwelling pond scum that exercises those rights.

You give bottom dwellers a bad name.

[SoonerStormchaser]

I'm as bothered by the cavalier attitude some people have toward other people's constitutional rights as I am by bottom dwelling pond scum that exercises those rights.

And I defend both of em...
Carolyn asks me how I can stomach it...I tell her I defend them the same way I protect the KKK and their right to hate speech. You can't differentiate, but that doesn't mean you can't hope they get the ever loving **** kicked out of them!

[SicEmBaylor]

And I defend both of em...
Carolyn asks me how I can stomach it...I tell her I defend them the same way I protect the KKK and their right to hate speech. You can't differentiate, but that doesn't mean you can't hope they get the ever loving **** kicked out of them!

Oh, I actively hope that they'll get the absolute **** beat out of them one day. But that's an issue of some good citizen dolling out a little righteous justice.

Legally restricting their right to protest is another matter entirely.

[badger]

Looks like they chickened out. (http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/05/westboro-baptist-no-show-oklahoma-funeral/) more photos there.

also, i really have stopped caring if westboro gets their first amendment or not. if you want to flaunt it as excessively as they do, then it's up to them to defend their right, not me

[SicEmBaylor]

Looks like they chickened out. (http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/05/westboro-baptist-no-show-oklahoma-funeral/) more photos there.

also, i really have stopped caring if westboro gets their first amendment or not. if you want to flaunt it as excessively as they do, then it's up to them to defend their right, not me
You aren't defending them -- you're defending liberty.

[cleller]

Everyone seems to be assuming that everything the Westboro people have to say is protected speech. Isn't it possible that the reason everyone is so opposed to them is because they are prone to speech that is false, or liable to incite violence? The law of the land is that such speech is not protected.


Freedom of expression is a diverse and wonderful thing. For instance when a group of patriots expresses their commitment to the sanctity of a funeral service by ensuring that unwelcome interruptions cannot occur.

[olevetonahill]

I say they Have the right to do and say whatever they want to do and say
I have the right to knock the Shat out of em .
Fair?

[SicEmBaylor]

Everyone seems to be assuming that everything the Westboro people have to say is protected speech. Isn't it possible that the reason everyone is so opposed to them is because they are prone to speech that is false, or liable to incite violence?
False speech isn't constitutionally protected???? Who, precisely, has determined what they say is 'false?' And what have they said that is liable?

The law of the land is that such speech is not protected.
This is so wrong that it's to the point of being absurd and down right scary.
1)False speech is legal. Believe it or not, it is not a criminal offense to say something that isn't true...especially when it's clearly an opinion.
2)Liable is a civil not a criminal matter and it doesn't apply in this circumstances.
3)There are some cases in which inciting violence can be illegal, but this again is not such an occasion.


Freedom of expression is a diverse and wonderful thing. For instance when a group of patriots expresses their commitment to the sanctity of a funeral service by ensuring that unwelcome interruptions cannot occur.

So, the Constitution is only for people who agree with you.

[olevetonahill]

False speech isn't constitutionally protected???? Who, precisely, has determined what they say is 'false?' And what have they said that is liable?

This is so wrong that it's to the point of being absurd and down right scary.
1)False speech is legal. Believe it or not, it is not a criminal offense to say something that isn't true...especially when it's clearly an opinion.
2)Liable is a civil not a criminal matter and it doesn't apply in this circumstances.
3)There are some cases in which inciting violence can be illegal, but this again is not such an occasion.




So, the Constitution is only for people who agree with you.

Hell No, **** agreein with anyone But ME, Then its right and Justice.

[Collier11]

SicEm, there is a big diff between the right to free speech and the right to incite riots and hate speech, they should be locked up everytime they open their ****ing mouths. The right of free speech doesn't give you the right to inflict endless pain on grieving families. There is a reason they keep "losing"

[Collier11]

I love that the bail bond companies offered free bond to anyone who ended up on the "wrong side of the law" with westboro, they are the scum of the earth and they should have their teeth kicked in

[Collier11]

Oh, I actively hope that they'll get the absolute **** beat out of them one day. But that's an issue of some good citizen dolling out a little righteous justice.

Legally restricting their right to protest is another matter entirely.

there is not a word that says they deserve the right to protest the death of a small child, if you defend that then you misread the constitution IMO and its true meaning

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm, there is a big diff between the right to free speech and the right to incite riots and hate speech, they should be locked up everytime they open their ****ing mouths. The right of free speech doesn't give you the right to inflict endless pain on grieving families. There is a reason they keep "losing"

Hate speech is protected, and I'm not aware of any riot they have caused or tried to incite. You would have to prove that they were on the street purposely trying to get people to start rioting in order for that to become an issue, and as far as I know that's not what they do.

[SicEmBaylor]

there is not a word that says they deserve the right to protest the death of a small child, if you defend that then you misread the constitution IMO and its true meaning

They absolutely do have the right to protest the death of a small child. They don't have the right to do it on private property.

What exactly is its "true" meaning, then? This is exactly the reason why we have the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment wasn't created so a person has the freedom to write a restaurant review of Applebees.

I fully understand that everyone here hates the Westboro crowd...myself among you. But trying to justify infringing on their constitutional rights simply because you find them to be loathsome is absolutely not right. You can't just decide that someone shouldn't have the right to speak simply because you find what they say to be distasteful.

In any case, you only have the 14th Amendment to blame for this not the 1st amendment. If it weren't for the 14th, then states like Oklahoma would not have their hands tied and would be free to restrict Westboro.

[Blue]

Sic Em is right.

[cleller]

When I mentioned speech that is liable to incite violence not being protected, I thought it obvious that I was referring to the "fighting words" exception.

Just a quick excerpt:
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Also, the Supreme Court has ruled false statements of fact are not protected speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact

That is what I meant by "law of the land". You simply do not have the right to say whatever you want at all times.

The fact that the Westboro bunch can quickly incite violence has already been shown on this thread via Youtube. Hell, they carry signs saying "Thank God for dead soldiers". They blamed the tornado on Kevin Durant. When people start blocking them from funerals there is a reason for it. To me its just another form of expression.

Sitting back saying "I hope they get murdered, but they should be able to say anything they want wherever they want" is ivory tower idealism. Saying they have some "right" to protest at the death of a child sounds like East Coast Yankee liberalism. Nothing of the sort has ever been established. If you show up at a funeral and cause problems, you deserve to be tarred and feathered. Defending it by waving the constitution around is ridiculous.

One one hand SicEM is wishing violence on Westboro and applauding those that deliver it, and on the other hand he's lecturing anyone who would simply block their path. Beating them half to death is permissible, holding them back is not. Idealist mush.

[cleller]

And just to be fair to the Baptist college there. Its Hillsdale and they are doing their part:

http://kfor.com/2013/05/24/hillsdale-free-will-baptist-college-transforms-into-tornado-distribution-center/

[Collier11]

When I mentioned speech that is liable to incite violence not being protected, I thought it obvious that I was referring to the "fighting words" exception.

Just a quick excerpt:
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Also, the Supreme Court has ruled false statements of fact are not protected speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact

That is what I meant by "law of the land". You simply do not have the right to say whatever you want at all times.

The fact that the Westboro bunch can quickly incite violence has already been shown on this thread via Youtube. Hell, they carry signs saying "Thank God for dead soldiers". They blamed the tornado on Kevin Durant. When people start blocking them from funerals there is a reason for it. To me its just another form of expression.

Sitting back saying "I hope they get murdered, but they should be able to say anything they want wherever they want" is ivory tower idealism. Saying they have some "right" to protest at the death of a child sounds like East Coast Yankee liberalism. Nothing of the sort has ever been established. If you show up at a funeral and cause problems, you deserve to be tarred and feathered. Defending it by waving the constitution around is ridiculous.

One one hand SicEM is wishing violence on Westboro and applauding those that deliver it, and on the other hand he's lecturing anyone who would simply block their path. Beating them half to death is permissible, holding them back is not. Idealist mush.

THIS

[SicEmBaylor]

When I mentioned speech that is liable to incite violence not being protected, I thought it obvious that I was referring to the "fighting words" exception.

Just a quick excerpt:
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Also, the Supreme Court has ruled false statements of fact are not protected speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact

That is what I meant by "law of the land". You simply do not have the right to say whatever you want at all times.

The fact that the Westboro bunch can quickly incite violence has already been shown on this thread via Youtube. Hell, they carry signs saying "Thank God for dead soldiers". They blamed the tornado on Kevin Durant. When people start blocking them from funerals there is a reason for it. To me its just another form of expression.

Sitting back saying "I hope they get murdered, but they should be able to say anything they want wherever they want" is ivory tower idealism. Saying they have some "right" to protest at the death of a child sounds like East Coast Yankee liberalism. Nothing of the sort has ever been established. If you show up at a funeral and cause problems, you deserve to be tarred and feathered. Defending it by waving the constitution around is ridiculous.

One one hand SicEM is wishing violence on Westboro and applauding those that deliver it, and on the other hand he's lecturing anyone who would simply block their path. Beating them half to death is permissible, holding them back is not. Idealist mush.

Do you know how difficult a standard that is to prove in court? When was the last time you heard of anyone prosecuted because they were trying to incite violence? It rarely happens. And, as I indicated earlier, your speech has to be overtly attempting to incite violence which their speech does not. They are voicing a religious opinion, but they aren't telling people to start rioting or be violent.

And, in any case, there is already a law pertaining to this. Why do we need another law to further limit their Constitutional right to free speech? If what they are saying is so dangerous that it may incite a riot then take it to a judge, get an arrest warrant, and try to prosecute them for that.

And I love how speaking up in favor of protecting constitutionally protected speech is "idealist mush." I'm sure the Constitution is just full of "idealist mush" to you.

Your reading comprehension skills are failing you again. I never said that I opposed anyone trying to block Westboro. I applaud anyone who tries to block them -- what I don't approve of is using the force of LAW that violates their constitutional rights to block them. If you can't understand the difference between a group of motorcycle riders blocking their view of a funeral and having a state legislature or the Congress pass a law that limits their constitutional rights then I really think there is no hope for you.

You said you used to be a campus popo, right? No wonder you're not really that into mushy clap-trap like legal rights.

[Collier11]

SicEm, people get arrested and prosecuted for inciting violence or inciting a riot all of the time, and are you really arguing that they aren't attempting or capable of inciting either? Surely you aren't so blinded by your defense of the constitution that you don't see that?

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm, people get arrested and prosecuted for inciting violence or inciting a riot all of the time, and are you really arguing that they aren't attempting or capable of inciting either? Surely you aren't so blinded by your defense of the constitution that you don't see that?

Of course they're fully capable of it -- everyone is capable of trying to incite a riot. As of yet, they have neither incited a riot nor has any of their speech explicitly tried to do so; therefore, there is no reason to arrest or attempt to limit their freedom of speech.

I absolutely cannot stand those people, but I just can't abide a government that targets a specific group of people and limits their constitutional rights just because everyone hates them for being bottom dwelling pond scum.

When people repeat that platitude, "I don't agree with you but I'll defend your right to say it.", this is exactly the time when that sort of mindset matters the most.

I absolutely cannot stand the thought of people not being free to speak their mind whenever and wherever they please (not withstanding private property). HOWEVER, a big exception to this is if they are disrupting freedom of movement. For example, if they were in the middle of a street blocking traffic or if they were standing at the gates to a cemetery not allowing people to enter, etc. etc.

[Collier11]

the problem is, they aren't just trying to speak their mind...they are trying to hurt people, they are trying to worsen the pain that those people are experiencing. That is not about taking peoples speech, it is about protecting those who are vulnerable

[cleller]

I'm as bothered by the cavalier attitude some people have toward other people's constitutional rights as I am by bottom dwelling pond scum that exercises those rights.



And I love how speaking up in favor of protecting constitutionally protected speech is "idealist mush." I'm sure the Constitution is just full of "idealist mush" to you.

Your reading comprehension skills are failing you again. I never said that I opposed anyone trying to block Westboro.

You said you used to be a campus popo, right? No wonder you're not really that into mushy clap-trap like legal rights.

The thread was all pertaining to how to stop them when you added in your first defense of their tactics. How is one supposed to take this?

You wrongly inferred that whatever they wanted to say was somehow automatically protected speech, as if there was no possibility that anything coming out of their mouths could be deemed unlawful. I was only documenting this is not the case, it is possible that some speech is not protected by the constitution.

Every time someone points out something incorrect that you say, you accuse them of not supporting the constitution, how is that called for? Its actually you that wants to be able to mold the constitution to fit your whims.

Next you question my reading comprehension while saying I said I was a campus police officer. I clearly stated I was not. At least try to live up to your own dim insults.

You end by generalizing that anyone who IS a campus police officer is automatically some kind of idiotic gestapo thug, uncaring of anyone's legal rights, and unfit to debate with your elitist, entitled view of the world. Why is that --do you feel the same way about anyone different from you? Because you have your opinions, certain occupations and people are all inferior to you? Very silver-spooned, knee jerk comment.

That's just lazy, generalizing bigotry. At least they are working to support themselves.


They absolutely do have the right to protest the death of a small child.

One quick question. Do you think someone doing this at a funeral in Oklahoma is likely to cause anyone at the funeral to become so enraged a breach of the peace may occur? Remember this is a child's funeral, not a military funeral.

[badger]

Soooo... did Westboro ever show up? Were there any true Internet rumors out there? Anyone know anything?

[olevetonahill]

Soooo... did Westboro ever show up? Were there any true Internet rumors out there? Anyone know anything?

Nothing in the News that I read or heard.Several rumors .

[BigTip]

The frequently used argument that "free speech" can be limited is the example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. But there are other examples:
Telling a judge to go suck eggs during a trail.
Telling a cop on a traffic stop that he's ugly.
Telling the president, "I want to kill you."

So there are examples of where free speech can be limited.

[badger]

So there are examples of where free speech can be limited.

There are also instances where public property is not open to the public, including protests, or when law enforcement can remove people from public property by force, including arrest.

I get that we can't choose enforcement of laws and respect of rights only when we agree with what they're protesting.

If there's one thing I can appreciate about Westboro, its that they are not adamant about making a public scene. If offered an alternative (such as the OSU alum's radio station offering 5 minutes of free airtime in exchange for not coming to the OSU bball coaches' funeral), they seem to usually take it.

[cleller]

You said you used to be a campus popo, right? No wonder you're not really that into mushy clap-trap like legal rights.

I got to thinking about this after hearing some Memorial Day stuff on the radio. When I was at OU, the overwhelming majority of the officers of OUPD were military vets, now working their way thru college. One guy was a retired USMC major going to law school. Another was a Vietnam vet who was working on some very technical night vision/IR cameras and scopes, one was a former Army drill sgt and WWII vet. Another is now commander of a fighter wing in Texas.

I think I'd rely on their commitment to the constitution over yours.

What a low comment, and on Memorial Day. Is that the way you view military vets in general?

[Collier11]

I love SicEm but remember, he is also the guy that defends the south...his political views are somewhat slanted

[SicEmBaylor]

I got to thinking about this after hearing some Memorial Day stuff on the radio. When I was at OU, the overwhelming majority of the officers of OUPD were military vets, now working their way thru college. One guy was a retired USMC major going to law school. Another was a Vietnam vet who was working on some very technical night vision/IR cameras and scopes, one was a former Army drill sgt and WWII vet. Another is now commander of a fighter wing in Texas.

I think I'd rely on their commitment to the constitution over yours.

What a low comment, and on Memorial Day. Is that the way you view military vets in general?
Uh, I never said military vets. I guarantee you my family has shed more blood for this country and has more military and police in it than yours done. Absolutely certain of it. I love and respect all of them. I guess one low-blow for another, eha?

And, no, I wouldn't automatically trust a cop's commitment to civil liberties over my own whether they're former military or not. That has nothing to do with the military.

[cleller]

Uh, I never said military vets. I guarantee you my family has shed more blood for this country and has more military and police in it than yours done. Absolutely certain of it. I love and respect all of them. I guess one low-blow for another, eha?

And, no, I wouldn't automatically trust a cop's commitment to civil liberties over my own whether they're former military or not. That has nothing to do with the military.


Yeesh, what a cop-out. You are the one that said that campus police are are not into mushy claptrap like legal rights. I pointed out that campus police are often military vets. So did you insult them or not?

No one likes a braggard. Bragging by proxy is even worse. Trying to inflate yourself by claiming your relatives have sacrificed more than someone else's is just childish, tasteless, and completely unconvincing. What kind of weasel says something like that? If it were true you wouldn't make demeaning statements like that toward "campus po-po".

How about answering the question as to whether or not you believe protesting a child's funeral is apt to cause someone to become angry to the point a breach of the peace occurs?

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeesh, what a cop-out. You are the one that said that campus police are are not into mushy claptrap like legal rights. I pointed out that campus police are often military vets. So did you insult them or not?
This is 'reductio ad absurdum.' Many liberals are military veterans; therefore, do I not insult military veterans when I criticize liberals? There are veterans in every job imaginable, am I to understand that any criticism of any job at any time is criticism of the military because there may be a good number of veterans in those jobs? This is such a ridiculous argument that I'm not going to respond to it again.


Trying to inflate yourself by claiming your relatives have sacrificed more than someone else is just childish, tasteless, and completely unconvincing. What kind of goof says something like that? Grow up.
That is not at all what I said. You implied that I had a low-opinion of military vets because many campus cops (or police in general) are former vets. My statement was intended to illustrate the fact that I hold the military in high regard. It was not a comparative analysis between people. Good God.


How about answering the question as to whether or not you believe protesting a child's funeral is apt to cause someone to become angry to the point a breach of the peace occurs?

Yes, I believe a breach of the peace can certainly occur. The breach of the peace at a funeral can happen for any number of reasons. An estranged relative showing up to a funeral can be cause for a breach of the peace. An argument over a will can be cause for a breach of the peace. A billion different things can cause a "breach" of the peace, but I wouldn't want to attempt to legislate away each of those possibilities.

There are ways to handle the Westboro Baptist Church outside of the use of enacting special legislation that specifically targets them.

[Collier11]

What they amount to is a terrorist, I have no patience for terrorists...and before you say that they are just using their legal right to protest and not harming anyone, how often do groups like this grow as big as possible and then start attacking people and/or hurting people?

[SicEmBaylor]

What they amount to is a terrorist, I have no patience for terrorists...and before you say that they are just using their legal right to protest and not harming anyone, how often do groups like this grow as big as possible and then start attacking people and/or hurting people?

I really don't want to live in a country where we start labeling everyone that says hateful things as "terrorists." That's a pretty f'n scary proposition when you consider that under the NDAA the United States is considered a "battlefield" whereby the President has the authority to classify individuals as terrorists and then arrest those individuals as "enemy combatants" and detain them under military authority. Now, President Obama when signing the NDAA in 2011 unequivocally said that would never ever happen....but it's theoretically possible for this President or a future President to do so. You see what a slippery slope this kind of thing is? Surely you can at least understand a bit of my concern when it comes to these sorts of issues, right?

Now, as for this group growing, size doesn't matter. Whether there are 3 or 30,000, they shouldn't be persecuted for some action that might occur as a result of something they may or may not say. Once they cross the line into actually causing harm then it becomes another story, but I almost never ever believe in "preventative" laws.

But I wouldn't worry about them growing in size. They only have like two dozen members and most (if not all) of them are from the same family. They're just a small family of highly offensive people that people get overly hyped up about which only feeds their commitment to show up to these funerals.

Remember -- Everyone ALWAYS has the right to simply ignore them tough though that may be.

[Collier11]

obscenity is regulated, what they do should be regulated more

[olevetonahill]

Them bastages Have the right to say and do what they want, I have the right to Uncontrollably swing my arms with my Hands all in a fist when ever they are in front of me.

[SicEmBaylor]

obscenity is regulated, what they do should be regulated more
Well, that shouldn't be regulated either but that's a topic for another thread.

[olevetonahill]

They should be forced to make us all Bacon sammiches cause they lil bitches

[SicEmBaylor]

As fanatical as they are, they probably don't eat pork since it's "unclean" but that's just a guess.

[olevetonahill]

As fanatical as they are, they probably don't eat pork since it's "unclean" but that's just a guess.

Dint say Them eat it I said they Make em Fer US. Pay Tention.

[Collier11]

Well, that shouldn't be regulated either but that's a topic for another thread.

That's kinda my point in posting that, if we as a country are going to pick and choose what can and cant be said or expressed...that is a great place to start. Sometimes people earn the right to lose their rights, it is a stick situation to say where the Govt can and cant decide, but they already do it all of the time right? This country has become so PC that we protect people like that but limit thing that people have the choice to observe like obscenity

[SicEmBaylor]

That's kinda my point in posting that, if we as a country are going to pick and choose what can and cant be said or expressed...that is a great place to start. Sometimes people earn the right to lose their rights, it is a stick situation to say where the Govt can and cant decide, but they already do it all of the time right? This country has become so PC that we protect people like that but limit thing that people have the choice to observe like obscenity

Well, the problem here is that you're looking at 'censorship' in the context of the end result, but you really have to peel back the onion layers until you get to why and how we censor.

Let me give you an example: We don't allow nudity on the airwaves, right? Why and how is that? Well, the government can do that because the government claimed complete ownership of the airwaves/frequencies that transmit both radio and television signals. They then 'lease' those airwaves to broadcasters and the terms of the lease stipulate that the government can and does mandate what can be shown or played on those airwaves.

Now, getting back to Westboro, limiting their free speech is not the same as censoring indecent material from the airwaves because the government does not claim ownership of the vocal frequencies used by a person to speak. Unless every person "leased" the right to speak from the government then this is an apples v. oranges argument. I happen to reject the notion that the government should own any airwaves, period, but like I said that's a debate for another day.

The point is -- the government can censor what is broadcast on frequencies that it leases to private entities but it cannot and should not censor what a person says (vocally) standing on a street corner.

[SicEmBaylor]

I think public nudity/indecent exposure is probably as close as you can get in the context of government having the right to censor. And, in the case of public nudity, I don't think you could use the same law to limit Westboro because I think that particular law stipulates that it has to be nudity of some sort.

HOWEVER, a fair question to ask is "If the government can censor visual offenses then why can't it censor auditory offenses?" That's a fair question, and I don't know how you would draw the line or differentiate between the two. In both cases, I would say you shouldn't but that's actually a fairly good argument that I hadn't considered until I started typing this....

[8timechamps]

Well, the problem here is that you're looking at 'censorship' in the context of the end result, but you really have to peel back the onion layers until you get to why and how we censor.

Let me give you an example: We don't allow nudity on the airwaves, right? Why and how is that? Well, the government can do that because the government claimed complete ownership of the airwaves/frequencies that transmit both radio and television signals. They then 'lease' those airwaves to broadcasters and the terms of the lease stipulate that the government can and does mandate what can be shown or played on those airwaves.

Now, getting back to Westboro, limiting their free speech is not the same as censoring indecent material from the airwaves because the government does not claim ownership of the vocal frequencies used by a person to speak. Unless every person "leased" the right to speak from the government then this is an apples v. oranges argument. I happen to reject the notion that the government should own any airwaves, period, but like I said that's a debate for another day.

The point is -- the government can censor what is broadcast on frequencies that it leases to private entities but it cannot and should not censor what a person says (vocally) standing on a street corner.

That's a grey area. The Supreme Court has made ruling that relieved networks of paying FCC fines for airing nudity and obscene language, but has never really addressed the issue straight on. Networks choose to censor programming (self-regulating) more for fear of losing advertising dollars than government sanctions.

[KantoSooner]

I would bet that the expandable spray foam would do just fine...

You, sir, are an artiste! A fine mixture of the traditional with modern technology, much in the same line of logic as underwire bra's and Spanx undergarments. I salute you!