Answer for: The Sleaziest People Of All Time
#29 Fred Phelps
| 
20 Comments
It's ok to hate gays, but stay away from the funerals of my country's soldiers to hold your protests!
Help Report a Bug About Grupthink Contact Us Blog/Press
© 2008 by Grupthink, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No claim of copyright or trademark is made to any material submitted by individual users. Any user-submitted material subject to copyright or trademark protection by third-parties is used solely for comment, criticism and discussion ("fair use").
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report alleged copyright infringement
Powered by Grupthink
Revision: 1691
Comments |
Leave a comment
i dont know who is he?
but i found this, is he the one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
Nah, different guy.
but its the same image.
Yes, Hazem has the right guy.
westboro gets their ass kicked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZGKx2pTBQc
"It's ok to hate gays"
Whiskey tango foxtrot?
'It's "ok" to hate...', hmm, I see where I can be misunderstood there. It's "ok" because one should not be arrested for hating something. They !should! be arrested for interrupting a funeral.
It's a free country. When I say free, I mean free thought and free speech. When I say free speech I mean speech limited to the point that it gives proper respect to other people's space.
Good question. Thanks
"When I say free speech I mean speech limited to the point that it gives proper respect to other people's space."
my slippery slope, let me show you it....
I don't know if that was supporting me or attacking me.
I think he's pointing out that saying you believe in free speech, but only if it's the right *kind* of free speech, is a slippery slope indeed.
The greatest testament to the strength of the first amendment is how we apply it to unpopular speech.
Speech should not be labeled as popular or unpopular.
Why not?
Because the unpopular speech is just another way of saying that a minority supports that speech.
....
Ah, ok, I yield. My argument makes no sense. I agree with you.
Don't get me wrong - I'm with you in that these turds shouldn't be allowed to loudly and visibly protest *anyone's* funeral - By that same token, though, I think that existing laws (assault, public nuisance etc.) can take care of the problem without invoking censorship.
Whatever law is used, it is censorship anyway you cut it.
Just as long as Phelps can hold up his signs at traffic intersections, universities, or some place else, censorship of him will not be ultimate. The ultimate censorship of Phelps speech should never happen.
I'm not as scared of that as much as Skritch is, because I don't think it is even close to happening. If it did happen, I think I would actually see myself on Phelps' side. (I cringe as I say this.)
"Whatever law is used, it is censorship anyway you cut it."
Not at all - It's not what he's saying that bothers me; In fact, I fully support his right to have a website about it, print pamphlets about it, etc. It's that he's doing it in a manner that demonstrably crosses the line into 'harming others' territory.
This argument is purely semantic.
How is it semantic when I don't support limiting his right to free speech in any way? My argument comes strictly from a "your rights end where my nose begins" angle.
From another perspective - If someone breaks into my house to tell me the good news about Jesus Christ, you can bet your ass I'm going to throw them the hell out; Furthermore, the law would back me up. Would you say that I was limiting the proselytizer's right to free speech?
No. not at all.