Westboro Baptist Church.

[Juniperdewdropofbrandy]

WTAF?? Did I read right?

here
What is the world coming to? This won't end well.

Nah, sorry claig, your claims don't hold water.

Fair enough, a few of the WBC work for the Kansas local government. Lots of people work in local government and one of the attractions of such employment is that it's difficult to be sacked. That's one of the things that makes up for what is often quite poor pay.

But it doesn't follow that just because a few of them are employed by local government that it therefore means that the US federal government is orchestrating some shadowy plan to discredit free speech. There is a very big difference between federal government and state.

The US supreme court regularly and routinely affirms the foundations of the first amendment protecting free speech. It's as robust and affirmed piece of law in the US as anything else other bar, maybe, the fifth amendment.

Moreover even if the federal government did want to discredit free speech as part of a conspiracy to deny god-fearing americans their fundamental human rights, financing the WBC is a downright dumb way to achieve that goal. They're a joke. The only thing they discredit are themselves.

The WBC are trolls. They're like toddlers - if they don't get the attention they crave by being nice then they'll get it by being naughty.

I am not saying it is the Federal Government doing it. I don't know who is behind the attacks on the First Amendment.

Here is a CNN report on the law brought in to stop the Westboro Baptist Church in particular, but which has wider consequences. The American Civil Liberties Union person is saying that this law has restricted free speech. To the ordinary person, all this legal stuff seems a bit arcane, but I think it can set a precedent, and can be the first step on the path to curtail freedoms.

Teh Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, is an organisation whose purpose is to push the envelope and anger the public until politicians are forced to legislate to curtail free speech.

You have to see the bigger political picture behind what seems like a bunch of cranks in a van, even if some of them work for the Kansas Department of Correction on the state payroll.

Sorry CNN article is here

edition.cnn.com/2012/08/08/opinion/rottman-aclu-funerals-free-speech

Very interesting to read the comments after the article. Lots of teh public are rightly disgusted by thge Westboro Baptist Church and what they do and they disagree with the ACLU person about the free speech aspect.

I believe that that is the response that is intended by those who wish to be able to curtail free speech.

There must be other laws that can be used to stop these people harrassing mourners at funerals etc without curtailing free speech.

'if they don't get the attention they crave by being nice then they'll get it by being naughty'

And the Kansas State Department of Corrections will even employ them when their hateful discriminatory views are broadcast all over national TV and radio.

As Elmer Fudd used to say to Bug Bunny, "there's something fishy around here"

So person or persons unknown have persuaded the Kansas state department to continue employing members of the WBC. But these shadowy and powerful persuaders are neither part of the state government not the federal government. Who is it then? Ronald McDonald?

Might it be that the fact these members of the WBC are still employed actually evidence of the power of the first amendment?

'Who is it then? Ronald McDonald?'

Certainly not. He is a nice guy who makes decent burgers.

Yes, the First Amendment still stands and let's hope it continues to do so.

But employers can sack staff who bring their company into disrespute by what they say or do outside of work, so I don't think the First Amendment protects employees from that.

I am surprised that the Department of Corrections employs people with those views, even though they are not expressed at work, but are widely expressed openly in public by those people.

Claig where do you draw the line between free speech and inciting hatred? On which side of the divide did Adolph Hitler's speeches way back when fall, given that people acted on them?

Just interested to hear where you personally draw the line.

Personally I think you should be able to say whatever the hell you want in your own home and among your own friends, but outside that you have a duty as a citizen to be a bit more careful. I'd hate for some wingnut to act on my ill-considered words about people who don't indicate while driving some day, I really would feel responsible.

I'll be back on this thread tomorrow, it's bedtime. Sorry to post and run, I've only just found this.

I don't know, it is a difficult area. I don't really understand all of the legal implications and where the line should be drawn.

But there is no such thing as absolute free speech, even in America. I think that in America there are laws against incitement to racial hatred etc.

It seems that in the case of Snyder vs Phelps, the issue was that the speech was about public matters rather than private and public matters are protected under the First Amendment.

I don't think that there are any easy, clear boundaries which is why these cases end up going to court and right up to the Supreme Court.

So the Westboro Baptist Church have not been prosecuted and stopped from their vile protests and activities because their act plays a role in removing the rights of the decent public.

This seems an incoherent argument, to me. They have not been prosecuted because of the First Amendment. Snyder failed, ultimately, in his action against them because if it.

The consensus is firmly that WBC is hateful, but under the constitution free to do what it does. There is no pressure to alter or reinterpret the First Amendment because of them. As I understand it, it is hard to get the Supreme Court to take these cases because they feel the law is clear and does not need restating.

There was a poster doing thr rounds of facebook a while ago that said
'Live your life so that the Westborough Baptist Church will want to picket your funeral'

Then you know you've done something right in this world.

'This seems an incoherent argument, to me.'

I have occasionally been accused of incoherency . Snyder originally won a $5m lawsuit against the Church, but they appealed and it went to the Supreme Court. I think that their protest was quite a long way away from the funeral itself and that therefore they were not directly interfering with it and that as well as the fact that the protest was about "public" matters may have been part of the reason why they won the case.

What I wondered was are there not any other laws on harassment etc that could be used. However, the Westboro Church is not breaking the law (as far as I understand it) and therefore presumably that means that they have done nothing wrong in law.

'There is no pressure to alter or reinterpret the First Amendment because of them.'

The actions and protests of the Westboro Baptist Church and the fact that international media report on them and interview them means that they have become a feature in the debate on free speech and whether all types of speech and offensive statements should be allowed. I think that the valuable right of free speech has been taken down to their level and that high media coverage has associated it with groups like them in the minds of many people.

There are articles on blogs by law professors and by mayors which discuss free speech and mention the Westboro Baptist Church within the discussion.

madlawprofessor.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/westboro-baptist-church-and-the-first-amendment/

www.theeaglepost.us/opinion/article_0a984728-e9db-11e0-9435-001cc4c002e0.html

In fact, the "The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa today filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of three members of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, to defend their freedom of expression and religion."

www.aclu-ia.org/2013/04/18/aclu-of-iowa-files-first-amendment-religious-freedom-lawsuit-in-westboro-baptist-church-flag-desecration-case/

I think that they are not as nutty as the media likes to portray them, and I do wonder if they really believe what they say or if they are acting. I find it hard to believe that a woman in a senior position at the Kansas State Department of Corrections really believes some of the things she says and protests about (but I may be wrong about that).

I think that there is a danger that their awful and offensive protests will eventually lead much of the public to associate the valuable right of free speech with such offensive speech and that they will then consent to the curtailment of free speech in order to prevent groups such as these. I think that some powerful people would like to see such amendments of the Constitution and that this group plays into their hands by some of its activities.

This is what Mayor Dan Potter wrote in an article

"The Westboro Church may call themselves Baptist, but we as Americans like to call them something else entirely.

People have taken a sacred document, given to us by our forefathers? blood, sweat and tears; twisted it, abused it and overused it to the point that the original intent is unrecognizable. Perhaps the time has come to repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution and replace it with an amendment that protects our country and the patriotic folks that desire to see it survive

As Americans, our hearts cry out at the thought of our Constitution being abused or changed The bottom line is this, if we are to keep our country the way our forefathers meant for it to be, changes must be made

www.theeaglepost.us/opinion/article_0a984728-e9db-11e0-9435-001cc4c002e0.html

I think the more media exposure this group gets, and the more outrageous and offensive that they are, the stronger the calls to change the Constitution will become. And then the losers will be "we the people" and the winners will be the powerful elites.

Sorry, claig, incoherent was a bit rude. Let's say 'muddled'!

I agree, I am always a bit muddled because I can't see the full picture and am trying to see through the mist.

No need to apologise, I didn't take offence.
In fact there is a poster who often calls me "incoherent and confused" and there may be a very little bit of truth in that.

I just don't see WBC as putting the First Amendment under any kind of pressure. Not even child abuse 'literature' has managed to do that.

False flag arguments are (perversely) comforting in that we can say 'It's a plot! No one is actually that nasty/weird/dangerous!'

But in this instance, I think they really are. We shouldn't underestimate what a potent issue homosexuality (WBC's main focus) is politically in the US. It is a pressing human rights issue for some and a unifying 'enemy without'/threat to the fabric of the nation/touchstone battleground for others. So in exploiting it WBC may get a lot of counter-protests and pressure but also a lot of support and kudos. And plain old attention.

Did you all see that Anonymous have hacked the Facebook page?

It all comes down to whether you believe that they are for real. I don't believe it. If they were for real, our comedians and interviewers would probably not interview them on jokey programmes and let them display their offensive banners and opinions on public TV.

If they were for real, I find it hard to believe how the Kansas Sate Department of Corrections could employ one of their members in a position of responsibility where she may come into contact and have to make decisions about housing for prisoners who are ex-military or gay.

There are some nasty people about who share their beliefs, but they don't go about on public TV broadcasting their views in interviews and I hope that they are not on the state payroll employed by the Kansas State Department of Corrections.

It seems to me that this group is so over the top that it is not real and is a caricature. That is why, in my opinion, our comedians and light-hearted TV documentaries interview this caricature rather than our serious political shows.

I think that this group is meant to push buttons for the general public and get them angry enough to accept changes to their rights.

The law professor says

"For a cult whose members number fewer than 90, the Westboro Baptist Church produces an endless series of philosophical challenges to the notion of free speech. ...

Reprehensible as it is, Westboro?s rhetoric has an oddly unifying emotional power. Indeed, the family?s harangues are so awful that the vast majority of us can shake our heads in easy dismay. As a baseline for political dissent, therefore, Westboro allows us to forget that the First Amendment really anticipates a kind of dissent that is more deeply challenging ...'

madlawprofessor.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/westboro-baptist-church-and-the-first-amendment/

I think that they unite practically everyone in saying how awful they are and gets us to question the notion of free speech.

I suspect that the Westboro Baptist Church are laughing at us along with an elite who wishes to curtail our rights and a media that plays along and has comedians interview them instead of asking serious questions about are they foir real and why is one of their members working for the Kansas State Department of Corrections.

If they were for real, our comedians and interviewers would probably not interview them on jokey programmes and let them display their offensive banners and opinions on public TV
Why on earth not? It was comedy gold. And their extreme views on homosexuality are shared by an enormous number of conservative devout Americans.

If they were for real, I find it hard to believe how the Kansas Sate Department of Corrections could employ one of their members in a position of responsibility where she may come into contact and have to make decisions about housing for prisoners who are ex-military or gay
They probably didn't know when they hired her and can't sack her because she'd take a civil rights/religious freedom case out against them and win. Plus, it's Kansas (see my point above).

It seems to me that this group is so over the top that it is not real and is a caricature
Bloody big step from that to 'power elites have created them to take away our rights'. Don't forget, First Amendment rights are working for the power elites just fine so far. Why create WBC to get rid of them?

'It was comedy gold.'

I don't think there is anything funny about this group and their obnoxious views and I don't think they should be given air time and I don't think the media should treat their views as a joke. I think the joke is being played on us the public. I think that they are the jester, but I wonder who pulls their strings.

'They probably didn't know when they hired her'

This group has been going for a long time and their offensive views are unlikely to have been a secret, and I am sure that the Kansas State Department of Corrections probably take references before employing people in jobs that deal with prisoners.

"The church has been actively involved in actions against gay people since at least 1991 , when it sought a crackdown on homosexual activity at Gage Park six blocks northwest of the church.[7] In addition to conducting anti-gay protests at military funerals, the organization pickets other celebrity funerals and public events that are likely to get it media attention.[8] Protests have also been held against Jews and some protests have included WBC members stomping on the American flag."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

"First Amendment rights are working for the power elites just fine so far. Why create WBC to get rid of them?"

Powerful people in general are not too keen on full disclosure and open information and criticism. Here we have seen a battle to regulate a free press and to increase privacy.

As to giving them air time, they aren't any more extreme on the homosexuality issue than a lot of conservative shock jocks, TV preachers and Fox News hosts etc. It is the military funeral picketing that makes them stand out, not the underlying views.

What kind of employment reference would tell people your religious affiliation (probably a breach of civil rights in itself)?

Come on, claig. This is your worst conspiracy theory ever.

In fact, the internet may be affected by our regulations

Here is a report which has some comments from the well-known political blogger, Iain Dale.

"But the extent to which the new regulation applies to the internet is not yet clear.

Having read the royal charter, Mr Dale wrote: "I think my blog would certainly fall under the remit. And it stinks."

"If I don't sign up and I am successfully sued, a judge would award exemplary damages against me," he said, adding that he could not risk his family's financial future.

"This is madness. All that will do is encourage people with a grudge to make a complaint in the full knowledge that they will never be held responsible for what they are doing," he said."

Press regulation. Internet concerns expressed

What's that got to do with WBC, though?

The coalition didn't implement a new Defamation Act and Leveson recommendations because of them.

'they aren't any more extreme on the homosexuality issue than a lot of conservative shock jocks, TV preachers and Fox News hosts'

I don't know because I don't listen to conservative shock jocks or TV preachers. But I occasionally watch Fox News and there is no way that they say anything like the things said by the Westboro Baptist Church about gay people.

'What's that got to do with WBC, though?'

It was about the general question of why powerful elites want to limit free speech. Because it suits them.

I'll buy that there are some "powerful elites" that want to limit free speech, particularly when that free speech is used to expose their shady dealings. Eg, the efforts to prevent people donating money to wikileaks.

I'll also buy that a few of the WBC happen to be employed by their local government in jobs that, for whatever reason, they have not been sacked from.

I still don't get that those two allegations can be added up and used to produce an answer of "Therefore the WBC is a front being used to discredit free speech."

I'm no expert on US employment law but I do know that it generally operates under the basis of "At-will employment". Essentially this means that your employer can sack you or you can resign with no notice and no cause unless your employment contract explicitly states otherwise. Something like two-thirds of US workers are employed on this basis - they could be fired tomorrow with no recourse.

Typically, though, most (all?) of those employed by state or federal government have employment contracts that do have quite stringent rules that lay out under what circumstances you can be dismissed. These tend to have been collectively bargained by unions and so go far beyond the "at-will" provisions. This is similar to the way that, in the UK, it's difficult to be sacked from the civil service.

Add that to the strong US predilection towards allowing free speech and I can well imagine that WBC members' behaviour outside of work is not regarded sufficient to cause them to be sacked from their government jobs.

The WBC is usually very careful to ensure that they stay within the letter of the law and I would imagine that they are scrupulous about not doing anything that crosses the line of their employment contracts. Plus the WBC is not shy of pursuing legal action when they feel their rights have been denied so I imagine that the line managers of these WBC members are in an unenvious position.

Sure, I could accept that the WBC members deliberately chose local government jobs in favour of private business specifically because once they're employed it would be hard for them to get sacked regardless of what they do in their own time. But to go from that to an assertion that this is evidence of the WBC being a front is ludicrous.

I am not saying that the fact that she is employed by the state is evidence of WBC being a front, I am just saying that it seems strange to me.

I don't know for sure if they are a front, I have no evidence, but my feeling is that they are not for real. I have heard Margie Phelps on a UK radio station interview and I thought she was too clever to really believe what she was saying and that she was acting.

When I add in how much publicity that they receive, how comedians interview them and what debates are initiated due to their actions, I wonder if they are being used to push an agenda of restricting free speech.

Here is an article of a government employee who was fired for what he wrote in a newspaper. He appealed using the First Amendment case. I don't know what the result of his appeal was.

www.salon.com/2011/11/28/inside_the_attack_on_the_first_amendment/