Free speech. It has some serious downsides.

Edit: In fact I think this is a distillation of what most christians and muslims really believe. Humans are evil and deserve to die. God actively punishes us for the sin of accepting gays by killing our young people.

When we die we will all go to hell. Yep. Sounds familiar to me.  Then there's that kid in the picture with the hell sign. What hope does that poor bastard have? 

Your average christian waters down their quiet internal stance when talking to us on these boards but you can't believe jesus needed to die to save your skinny arse without tarring the rest of us with the same freaky brush.

Freedom of worship is something I am slowly becoming firmly opposed to. These doctrines are nothing but hate crimes. We need to wake up and demand this insane stuff be outlawed under civil law.

I believe it was TheAmazingAtheist who once said that freedom of speech means that sometimes incredible assholes win.

I agree, but I would rather have the assholes win, than those with good ideas lose.

I had a feeling that was the case when I first read the headline. The question I have is how close are they to the actual funeral procession when they do their picketing and can they actually legally be within earshot of the procession? If they are really far so as to not be able to interrupt the actual the burying etc, then I don't really see any problem with them spreading there stupid message since apparently no one is listening anyway.

I have to say I agree with Beyond Saving here.  My opinion is simple, you can spout off whatever nonsense that can come off the tip of your tongue so long as you acknowledge the consequences.  These people have the right to be their and spread their drivel, just like the family has the right to bury their loved one in peace if they want.  Allowing the protest out of earshot of the bereaved is the best option to stop more misery and pain for the family.

Guilty as charged, damn I'm supposed to not say stuff like this out loud.

If an atheist says, "All religious should die" does that mean the atheist is actually going to go kill religious people? O

I have no choice but to protect these assholes.

Dont give me this politically correct crap that government should force everyone to only say nice things about you.

If these jackasses are not violating private property, if they are not violating noise laws, and if they are not violating the physical motion of others, then they have the right to be dicks.

If the atheists here pulling this "hate speech" crap want to shoot themselves in the foot, trying to silence these bigots will have the opposite affect.

Atheists are outnumbered in this country. How many times have we said "religion is dangerous"? Do you want the believing majority, who constitute our law makers and law enforcement deciding for you what you can or cannot say?

The only thing either side can agree on is that no matter what we say or how offensive something someone might say to us or how hurtful it may be, the only laws any civil person can agree on is not physically harming someone, and not advocating harm to someone.

Otherwise if any atheist wants politically correct "hate speech laws" this very website could and would be silenced because some Christian called it "hate speech".

"The first person to hurl an insult instead of a stone started civilization" Freud.

I think these bigots are sick in what they do. But as I said, if they are not trespassing, if they are not violating noise laws, if they are not impeding the motions of others, and they are not getting violent with others, then they have every right to do so. Without giving them that protection, I could potentially lose my right to bitch about them.

It is short term thinking to try to force people to only say nice things about you. The long term damage in trying to set up taboos is that the government you live under may not agree with what you say. Political landscapes change and social norms change and lawmakers change and those in power may not agree with what you say.

I warn the well intended atheists here who want humanity to get along, it is not your intent, but your tactic I object to. You don't silence others via government, you use the same open market of free speech. You use the same right to bitch that they do. You don't legislate morality and you don't demand people like each other. The only think you can do is say to anyone is don't physically harm others.

And if the lawyers for these bigots are doing their job, they will and should win. I would suggest the well intended watch "The People vs Larry Flint" before we suggest government enforce blasphemy laws, which is the same ilk as "hate speech".

If I myself want the right to say "The Pope is a penis wearing asshat who's policies give people disease because he advocates no use of condoms" You cannot tell me there would not be Catholics that would demand a law demanding I cant say that.

Ireland has recently had buyers remorse after they tried blasphemy laws, and some very smart ATHEISTS posted "blasphemy" from famous historical figures. Now that country is regretting its taboo laws.

I myself do not want to be told who the fuck I have to like and what I can or cannot say about them. I will obey common law in that I cant physically harm them.

This court if it is doing it's job will protect them as they should.

I'll tell everyone right here right now, when I die, I don't give a shit what others say about me, I wont have that capability of caring. I don't give a shit what my detractors say about me now. And I would not want protesters banned from protesting my funeral, as long as they are obeying all laws.

How many people here were happy when Falwell died? How many people would love to see the Vatican go the way of the Pyramids?

WHAT our species needs to learn is that merely being offended or hurt by what others say is nothing compared to the REAL violence that no human wants. The best any of us can do is let the bitching happen and agree not to physically harm others.

That's the problem.  All of those things should be considered free speech.  Whatever people say, it should be protected, whether it's true or not, or whether it can cause you emotional harm. Even if it leads to physical harm.  Speech is not the problem here. The problem is narrow minds that would fall for something along the lines of 'Convert or you'll be hurt'.  They have the right to say it, and you have the right to laugh at them.  My opinions are not popular at all in my family(many neo-conservatives of the Bush type), but I am still allowed to say even the most disrespectful thing I can think of.  Then they will respond in kind.

Now I find what Phelps and the Westboro followers are saying beyond any sort of decency, but they have that right. If they lose that right, like Brian37 says, it would not be a terrible leap of logic to see the right to blaspheme taken away.  It would be a terrible day to see what you or I say daily criminalized.

Also, when snake oil salesmen try to sucker you, it is YOUR job to not fall for it.  They have to right to be a dick and try to make money. We should teach our children to see the signs of scams and call bullshit as soon as they see it.  They are just trying to make money in a capitalist economy.

If an enterprising atheist wants to run scams like some theists do there shouldn't be anything stopping them. I see no problem with people saying 'if you don't convert to atheism some powerful people will come and hurt you'.  My problem would be with the person who would believe that statement outright.

The problem isn't the speech, it's how we interpret it and whether we give any value to what is being said.  Let the Phelps of the world spew their hate, and then counter them with reason.  Some people will fall for Phelps crap, and the ones that learn will either just walk away or counter rally against them.

That's the true beauty of America, we are free to be dicks to anybody we want, the line is clearly drawn at bodily harm, death, purposeful intent to riot.

So if someone comes up to your girlfriend and say "if you have a relationship with Kevin, someone will hurt you". This should be protected speech? It is not legal, it would be fighting words and a threat. Fighting words and threats of harm should not be legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

We have a huge problem in the country with bulling, a lot of it is just verbal, but it all needs to be harsh dealt with.

You may be able to see what a scam it is but not impressionable young people. It is a problem of teaching critical thinking in schools.

If god is harmed by any false statements we make about him, he should be allowed to sue us in court. But in the law now, we are not treated equally:

Theists can say someone('god') will harm you if you become an atheist.

Atheists can not say 'someone' will harm you if you became a theist.

They are legally allowed to threaten with harm anyone that may think of converting. We can not(not that we would want to anyways).

Threats of harm already are criminalized. People get restraining orders all the time against people that verbally threaten them. But we've carved out and exception for religious threats.

Ridiculous. Business can not function if we allow fraud. What about a car repairman that claims he can fix your breaks when he knows nothing. The law must punish fraud severely for an economy to function.

That's what happened in USSR. They did hurt people that didn't give up their religion. I have a big problem with that. There is no place in civilized society for threats of any kind. Not the kind of atheist society I would ever want.

OK so you can see Phelps is a blowhard dick. But some impressionable teenager with gay desires may be fearful of coming out and pursuing a gay relationship because he thinks Christians will harass him, perhaps harm him god's name. Is that right? Threats may not affect you at all, but that is not true for a lot of people.

So if someone came up to your girlfriend and said "if you have sex with Kevin, someone will harm you", those aren't fighting words? Suppose they wrote all over the Internet that you murdered someone or stole from your past employer, so you found it difficult to find a job because of these lies. Should that be protected speech?

I think the line must include threats of harm, liable and bulling including religious bullies.

 There is a difference between a threat and a warning. If I said to you "you better not have sex with Kevin's girlfriend because he will kill you" you would never be able to win a lawsuit against me unless you could somehow prove that Kevin had sent me to tell you that. The religious person who says "if you don't believe in god you will go to hell" isn't issuing a personal threat. They are warning that god is going to hurt you. Now if a religious person says "if you don't believe in god I am going to kill you" now you have a threat. Although for practical purposes it is really difficult to sue someone over a threat. Generally, it is only successful in cases where physical violence was imminent or continued harassment.  If we were in a casual conversion and I said "I'm going to kill you" at most you could get a restraining order unless some other violence was involved or evidence that I was actually intending on killing you.   

I agree with this too.  I like having the right to say something, even if someone thinks that I could be threatening.  I just have a hard time with the idea of crimininalizing peoples words and opinions.  Like with these Westboro freaks, there have been times that I have read articles and seen documentaries(one that was aired on MSNBC, be damned if I can remember the title, and Fall From Grace) where I have literally felt the hate rise up in me where I wanted to cause these people harm.  I have the right to say that, I have the right to wish them harm concerning their opinions, but I also have to take my emotions out of the situation and say that they can picket these funerals and cause a huge stink. Our constitution allows for many great things, and I believe that the right to voicing an opinion, whether good or bad, hurtful or helpful, is a good thing.  I would hate to start down a hill that ends with only certain opinions and words being ok.

God hates Phelps

God bless dead Westboro church members.

These statements are hateful, but thankfully, I have the right to express them. For me, god doesn't exist, for them, these slogans would be war cries.  I'm glad I live in a country that allows these sort of statements so that I can say things like

God doesn't exist

The holy spirit doesn't exist

and that the faithful have wasted their entire lives praying for nothing.

End rant about my opinion of first amendment.

And what makes you think I advocate any taboo law. Just because it is a popular motif law makers use to get elected and or popular law people want, doesn't mean it is practical to a healthy open market of ideas long term.

So when Christopher Hitchens called Jerry Falwell a toad on national tv upon his death, are you suggesting Hitchens get fined and or arrested?

No one said you had to like these morons. No sane person is saying they are showing respect. I am saying by banning them doing that would have a negative long term affect on all citizens. Eventually the government may get to something you might want to say or do and ban it because they find it lacking respect. Do you think some Christians might say this website shows a lack of respect for religion?

Allowing others to say even cruel things about you, without harming them is what makes society civil. You cant force people to like you. You can only agree not to physically harm each other.

As long as these bigoted morons are obeying all property laws, noise laws, and are not physically violent, they have that right.

If you want laws banning them from doing that, you are potentially handing a loaded gun to a majority government who does not share the same label you do.

I you want to beat these morons, you use the same market of speech and same laws they live under and use your own voice and ridicule them and marginalize them so that no one will take them seriously. But if you want your own right to bitch, the only way to protect that is to even protect speech you find offensive. DONT shoot yourself in the foot with your good intent.

lol, I love that line. You should make it into your sig.

As despicable as ever but I would still be against the government prohibiting you from saying it. I say Osama Bin Laden deserves to be tortured and suffer a slow painful death and I don't want the government to prohibit me from saying it. And I certainly don't care what people have to say about people in Singapore. I would even support your right to say the I deserve to be tortured and die. Again, there is a difference between saying "you are evil and deserve to be tortured and I hope you die" and "I am going to torture and kill you".  The former ought to be protected the latter shouldn't.

There was another incident recently where a member of the Black Panther Party said,

While this treads right on the line of inciting violence and Shabazz might have some liability if someone in his audience actually killed someone I don't think he should be thrown in jail simply based on what he said. Now he should have been thrown in jail and left to rot when he showed up at a polling place in a uniform with a club. What the Westboro church did was despicable in its own right but not as openly violent as Shabazz. But if we stop them from saying it, does that mean they aren't thinking it? Or whispering it in private? 

At least I know when Shabazz is around I should keep a hand on my .40 Think of it as a rattle snake. They give you plenty of warning that they are there and they are crazy. Compared to the Black Mamba or the Australian Brown snakes which are more aggressive and give little, if any warning. I much prefer the rattler which will usually warn me exactly where the danger is. You wouldn't cut the rattle off of a rattle snake because the bite could still kill you.

I'd rather know hear in public what these groups are thinking and then put their more moderate members in a position of having to choose between belonging to the group or being recognized as a crazy radical. It is much harder to belong to the Westboro church or the Black Panthers if everyone knows how crazy they are than if it was all kept quiet.

Good intent is a cluster fuck long term.

It is nice that people want society to get along. But as individuals we, they, everyone, is different in their likes and dislikes and whom they like.  AND WE all bitch.

As I said, as much as this has good intent the downside is that the powers that be might get to some bitching you want to do and because of these well intended laws, silence you.

The laws that make society equal, are not of morality, but of common ground. The only common ground one has with people one might hate, is not wanting physical harm to come to oneself.

You don't think this is comparable to shouting fire in crowded theater? I think what the courts have to judge is whether there is an intent to deceive or is this person expressing an opinion. Phelps is probably hoping someone will perform a violent act against gays(he's not brave enough to do it himself).

Depends on if it is true or not. I think if we continually claimed Mormon elders molested children when there were no cases of this, we could be sued(there actually are cases though). If someone wrote all over the Internet members of the RRS had sexually harassed co-workers making it difficult to find a new job, why couldn't you sue them?

I think the law needs to change so that you have to put a disclaimer on all speech that is opinion but may be misunderstood as fact.

It is not just thought what Phelps is doing, he is writing and screaming out defamations.

I understand the point. But what I object to is treating religion any different than any other business. If I stay in a hotel and it has bedbugs, I should be able to go on the Internet and post this report. If I send my kid to Catholic school and the priest tries to molest them, this should be posted as well.

The problem is democracy depends on an informed public. Also every economic purchase is based on information. You can't have people knowingly spreading factual lies when people depend on accurate information to make decisions. But we give religion an exemption.

I admit it. Once in a while I'd like to see Phelps and his church silenced before some serial gay basher thinks it would be cool to do what Fred says.

What crime has Phelps committed? What crime has Phelps accused gays of?

All he says is "gays are going to burn in hell"

I have called religion dangerous and I have called the Pope a dictator.

Stop being a victim. NO ONE IS SPECIAL because of a label. Being hurt in life happens to EVERYONE. If someone gets murdered for money how would they be any less dead if they were murdered because of a jealous lover, or any less dead because they were Jewish, or Muslim, or atheist. DEAD IS DEAD.

You are basically saying that someone robbed and murdered is less of a human because they weren't murdered because they were gay.

And as far as "I want him stopped before someone decides to act on what he says"

OUR LAWS however are reactionary not based on presumption of guilt. The reason it has to be that way is because you don't want OUR government assuming that YOU as an atheist are going to commit acts of violence on believers merely because you hate what they claim and express that emotion. So the only time the government can or should step in, is when an act is commited. Anything before that is a presumption of guilt.

The only thing Phelps is guilty of is being a bigoted nutcase. Until he breaks the law, he has the same rights as you and I. Any presumption of guilt on government's part opens the door for YOU as well to get fucked over.

This is not about labels, this is about what type of government we live under.

Is it ok to teach kids that minority groups deserve to die? Any minority groups. Let's select a group that's emotionally charged. Black folks. Should it be legal to tell kids black people are born evil and deserve to die?

Thanks for this - yeah look, I think I am making the distinction well enough but it's just an issue I can't rationalise in my head. I can't convince myself demonising other people, and indoctrinating kids into a hate-based belief system is not a criminal act.

I could say so-and-so is a bastard, so-and-so is a twit, I could say I hate the Australian opposition leader's insistence on wearing budgie smugglers at the beach, but I couldn't say he was evil and deserved torture.

Surely there has to be a line drawn? No doubt in Europe in WW2 a lot of people though the anti-semitism going on was some sort of phase that meant nothing in reality. But that vilification did have a meaning.

Over time it created an atmosphere in Hungary, Ukraine, Poland, Germany and Spain where racial vilification was normalised.

I think vilification of unbelievers is normalised. I'm sure on fictional judgment day, the christians will sip their vintage krug and watch the demon-possessed herded into the fire.

You can hear it in their comments on this site: "Hell is not a matter for us to judge", "That is between you and god", "You have made your choices", "We cannot intervene".

What I am saying is that vilification is an active, not a passive force for harm. Maybe I'm being too emotional about it. 

Should free speech be the substrate on which a society is built. Yeah, it should. But it's not black and white and there are some areas that are troubling.

This attitude is a preemptive presumption of guilt. Anytime anyone says hateful things about others, and we as a collective society will suffer by turning government into thought police.

And to CJ,

Lawsuits certainly are a different issue, but even in these cases it gives me a lip twitch when people suggest even these things.

Once you start screwing with people's expression of emotion, even the emotions we don't like, what people fail to realize is that the government, or the lawsuit, could be aimed at you, and what you want to say and express.

It has to be absolutely clear that someone is advocating emediate danger to someone else. It cannot simply be, " I wish you weren't alive" or "you are going to burn in hell" or "atheists are destroying America."

I think it is a very dangerous game for society to play "I get to decide whose feelings can't be hurt". What if you are not in the position of lawmaker, or police, or even civil court judge? What if the majority around you is offended merely by your existence? Do you really want to hand that kind of power over to people who don't like you?

What can be acted on are CLEAR THREATS,

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY:

"iI want you to kill my wife"

Or

"I want you to beat up my neighbor"

Or

"Go beat up that gay man"

Or

"Go beat up that atheist"

Those clearly advocate violence beyond expressing mere emotion. Since I want my right to call the Pope a dictator, I cant take away someone else's right to equate me to Hitler, no matter how much it offends the other.

There is also the issue of speech that is designed to molest people in a public place. People should have a right to enjoy public places. This is why we don't allow nudity in public or loud music in park or let people honk their horns in traffic. So people are in place they are legally allowed to be are being molested. I think this may be why the court rules his 'speech' is illegal. He made his point. Everyone knows what he wants to say. Any further speech is designed to molest and not to express an opinion. I think it could also be used to stop anti-abortion protesters from bothering workers and patients.

Could an atheist stand outside a church with signs saying 'religion is poison' or 'indoctrination is child abuse'? I would say only briefly, let people make their point. If they scream and yell and do it on a continuous basis, they need to be stopped. The court must decide between speech to express and opinion and speech to harass and intimidate people.

If the protest was so obscure as to be in another state, p'raps this pindick should have held it privately in the Westboro church hall. I agree with what you guys are saying but some one should take Phelps aside and stick their boot up his arse.

taking turns ought to do it.

Right, then their fans would want to stick a boot up your arse, and then your fans would want to stick a boot up their arse, ect ect ect, see where this is going?

"The first person to hurl an insult instead of a stone started civilization" Freud.

That is the best humans can get, any attempt to ban speech creates resentment. Whereas, if we all agree not to harm each other, no matter what is said, no one of any position has to fear their neighbor, or government.

Having feelings of wanting to kick someone's ass is normal, doing it in reality is as it should be, illegal. Expressing hate of someone is normal. But so is wanting to live without fear of physical harm. So let em bitch, so you can bitch back. Lets just all agree that we won't physically harm others.