Why The Ruling In Favor Of Westboro Church Is A Victory for Gay Rights

[Mytical]

Gravekeeper let me ask you a few things. Why are certain things allowed to be said, and certain things not? Because they are popular? Because of the majority? Who decides what is ok to say, and what is not? How? Ok..so lets say that currently it is a good group of people, and you agree with everything they do. Great.

10 years down the road, another group comes into power..and limits everything YOU want to say? All in the name of 'political correctness'. Your not allowed to teach your kid X..you must teach them Y because it is more 'politically correct'. While I agree that we SHOULD not say certain things, I disagree with limiting any speech.

I know this is probably a bit random, and not coming across as I want..so I will try to explain.

Lets say there is the KKK and a group drastically opposed to what the KKK says. How is "The KKK a bunch of degenerates, back hill yokels who need to be taken out back and shot." any different then what the KKK might say about whoever? Shouldn't we then ban anything biased against them? It's hate speech after all. Except then, anything said against the anti-kkk group would be biased..so we'd have to silence them. Etc. That is IF we are being fair and applying the same rules to EVERYBODY.

Soon, nobody would be able to say anything.

Ah but of course, your group should be the one to dictate what everybody can and can not say. You know best? I am sure that a lot of people would beg to differ. So again..who decides? Why should they get to decide? Where is the line drawn?

Words only have the power we give them. Sure there are ignorant people out there willing to believe anything. Humans are flawed. However, the answer to ignorance is education, not silencing. Silencing makes something 'taboo', and human nature likes to explore the 'taboo', and even sometimes makes it more appealing. Silencing doesn't stop the problem, it ignores it.

[Hyena Dandy]

GK: Out of curiousity, just how DOES that work?

I mean, I always like learning about other country's systems.

So, in a parliamentary system, the people can all bring down the ruling party, but how? That is, is there a special date when everybody has to go out and vote on whether or not they want to keep the current government? Or does the parliament or the Prime Minister call elections. Or the Governor General?

[Greenday]

Lets say there is the KKK and a group drastically opposed to what the KKK says. How is "The KKK a bunch of degenerates, back hill yokels who need to be taken out back and shot." any different then what the KKK might say about whoever?

They chose to be in a group of ignorant pricks.

You don't choose to be black or gay. And what have the Jews done to the KKK?

One group is innocent, the other isn't.

[Mytical]

Which misses the point Greenday. The other group opposed to the KKK would 'choose' to be in the group against the KKK, and spouting just as hateful as speech. So .. how would that be any better?

[Greenday]

Which misses the point Greenday. The other group opposed to the KKK would 'choose' to be in the group against the KKK, and spouting just as hateful as speech. So .. how would that be any better?

Not liking people because they are bad people and choose to be that way isn't wrong.

Not liking people because of something beyond their control is.

[Mytical]

You are probably right Greenday. I just can not personally see the difference. Hate speech against anybody is just as bad as against anybody else. Silencing one group is just as bad as silencing another. Just because WE agree with one, and disagree with the other means zilch.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller

WE give those who spew hate speech their power. Education and information can take it away. Since somebody is going to be offended by anything we say, it is indeed a slippery slippery slope.

[Boozy]

Why are certain things allowed to be said, and certain things not? Because they are popular? Because of the majority? Who decides what is ok to say, and what is not?

Hate speech laws prohibit any type of speech that may incite violence against a certain group. That includes the KKK. It includes everyone.

You can't make a stump speech that may encourage violence. You can't say "I hate all fags and I think we ought to go kill them all". You can't say, "I hate all Klan members and I think we ought to go kill them all." The laws in Canada address the content of the speech, not the targeted group.

[Andara Bledin]

Ah, but you're not allowed to incite violence in your speech here in the US, either. That's why the signs always say "X Group should die" not "Kill X Group." The first is protected, the second is not.

Bringing it back around, sort of, freedom of speech gives us the right and ability to say anything we like about the WBC because they're a group of anti-Christian, homophobic, bigots who all deserve to die painful, disfiguring deaths from incurable diseases without fear that we might get fined for saying so.

In places where speech isn't so free, they would be protected based on the fact that they operate as a church.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I hate this quote. It doesn't apply to America, Canada, UK, etc. A nazi dictatorship isn't happening any time soon so it's pointless to try to use to prove a point.

[Andara Bledin]

I hate this quote. It doesn't apply to America, Canada, UK, etc. A nazi dictatorship isn't happening any time soon so it's pointless to try to use to prove a point.

It applies anywhere that "good men do nothing" because whatever group is being targeted doesn't happen to include them.

So long as we remember, hopefully we won't repeat the mistakes of the past.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I hate this quote. It doesn't apply to America, Canada, UK, etc. A nazi dictatorship isn't happening any time soon so it's pointless to try to use to prove a point.

Some colleagues of mine were in Nuremberg for a trade show a while back and visited the war trial museum. Their main comment? "It could have so easily happened here."

With the free spread of information we have these days it would be far harder for something like that to occur, but humans are still humans.

For the unitiated, the part I'm thinking of is 'stupider in large groups'.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

I actually have to agree with HD (yeah, stranger things have happened :P ) but for different reasons.
I agree that the WBC winning was a good thing for the movement, and while yes, I do see the significance of proving free speech will still be protected, there is something deeper than that.
The WBC is extreme enough that they force people to reflect upon themselves. They force people who are Christian and not very vocal to decide if they want what WBC says to be representing their faith. I know several Christians who have become strong allies (most of them have subsequently left the church alltogether, but that is a different thread I'm sure) because they decided that they were tired of Mr. Phelps being the mouthpiece of their faith. The more the WBC protests and makes asses of themselves, the more people will be forced to choose a side, and not many people will want to be spoken for by the WBC.

[Hyena Dandy]

I actually have to agree with HD (yeah, stranger things have happened :P ) but for different reasons.

You agreeing with me in a thread about religion?

Stranger things have happened but not many. :P

[HYHYBT]

Not liking people because they are bad people and choose to be that way isn't wrong.

Not liking people because of something beyond their control is.

Ah, but who decides which is which? Go back 50 years, and virtually everybody thought gay people were "bad people" "choos[ing] to be that way." (Entirely too many people still believe this.)

[Mytical]

Andara, Raps, and HYHYBT put it much better then I could have, and I thank them for that.

Education is the best defense against ignorance, not hiding it away. Ignoring doesn't solve it, just puts it out of the way. We can be as politically correct as we wish, walking on eggshells until the end of time. Worried about who we will offend next. Or..we can help the next generation understand things, showing them all view points..letting them come to their own conclusions. We can disagree with people without resorting to the lowest common denominator.

As for the quote, I'll stand by it. As somebody pointed out, it is not about 'nazi' or any other specific group. It is about censorship, and standing by and doing nothing.

Fight ignorance with education
Fight hate speech with tolerance
Stand up when you need to
Defend yourself and your loved ones when you must
Hate only begets more hate
Tolerance only begets more Tolerance

Not a quote, just something I personally believe. I will stand up for what I think is right, but live and let live when I can.