Also

[mark_asphodel]

 With regards to the Westboro Baptist Church verdict:

I have seen a great deal of bitchin' and moanin' from all sides of the political spectrum, from whining about a "liberal pinko kommie" Supreme Court (Justices Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas are surprised to hear they are now "liberals") to complaints that people should protest outside Justice Roberts's house and see how well he likes it.  I saw complaints about how "common sense and decency" should have taken precedence over the First Amendment and how a group that "isn't really a church" shouldn't be protected.

All of these people are missing the point.  Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and "common sense and decency" don't come into it when you're already standing in your little designated protest area waving a sign.  Standards for common sense and decency evolve, but you will always have the right to take up a placard and proclaim yourself an asshole.  If all the Constitution did was protect the speech that the Silent Majority wanted to hear, then we'd all be in trouble.  

And beware of the desire to silence people because they're not "real" Christians and their "church" is really a cult.  The church you save thereby may be your own.

PS: I like how centrist and left-wing bloggers frame the Westboro nutters as "anti-gay" while right-wingers frame them as "anti-war." Hint: one of these themes is FAR more dominant in Westboro's escapades than the other.  Disingenuous skunks.

Comments

[korsriddare.livejournal.com]

I agree with the freedom of speech. It cannot be selective in most cases.

Though I believe one day WBC might protest at the wrong funeral. Where one of the griefing brother is drunk, has anger management issues, and owns a shotgun.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

Though I believe one day WBC might protest at the wrong funeral

And when that day comes, I rather hope the verdict is "justifiable homicide."

They came to my city earlier in the year; I believe the counter-protesters outnumbered them, and it was very much a non-issue. Like many despicable groups (that Florida pastor and his Quran-burning party come to mind), they attract FAR more airtime than they should. Starve the beast.

[raphiael]

Definitely agreed. While I seriously object to a lot of the WBC's practices, saying they don't have the right to do what they're doing, douchebaggy as it is, is a slippery slope indeed.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

People need to get it through their heads that they don't have a Constitutional right to not have their feelings hurt. Yes, there are things you can't and shouldn't do in the workplace, in a school, from a government office. But yes, Virginia, you do have the right to be a sandwich-board douchebag.

Also, the "not a real church" thing makes me laugh; WBC may well be a tax-dodge, but I consider many "respectable" institutions to be the same thing on a grand scale. Good thing for them I'm not making the rules.

[raphiael]

Yeah, exactly. Does it suck? Yeah. But you can't outlaw it. Really :/

Oh, definitely agreed. You can't pick and choose what's legit and what isn't. There's that whole separation of church and state issue - can't legislate that stuff, man.

[sailorvfan10.livejournal.com]

As much as I utterly despise the WBC, you can't deny them their basic First Amendment rights. They say a lot of douchey things, but you can't silence them because you don't like it. If we did that, where would it stop then?