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

[Greenday]

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.)

It's a good thing it's 2011 and we now know it's not. Can't help that there are still people that are willfully ignorant but that doesn't mean we should have to tolerate them.

[fireheart17]

I remember around the time of the state election last year that there was a proposal for anyone commenting on any blog or website to put their actual name and location. Oh dear lord, that went down the toilet quick. Everyone attacked it citing the right to free speech online and also pointing out key flaws in the plan: that in order for the law to be enforced, how do they stop hackers and people who can modify their IP addresses from posting different views?

The law was subsequently shelved and the guy in question who proposed it stepped down at the election. He was also our Attorney-General and the one responsible for whether we should or shouldn't have an R18+ game rating. (New attorney general is in support) Therefore very unpopular with the Internet folk.

Our freedom of speech is pretty well protected around here. You can say stuff to an extent, but nobody pulls the "Freedom of speech" card. You can say it, just you won't be popular afterwards. Around the time of the Mardi Gras here in Sydney (LGBT Mardi Gras), one TV presenter called it disgusting. He was attacked and forced to apologise by the public later.

[Hyena Dandy]

The same thing happens in the US.

The thing about freedom of speech, which so many people fail to realize, is that you can say whatever you want. But other people can say whatever they want about you.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

It's not counter intuitive at all.

I see it as a win as well.

One of the biggest weapons at the WBC's disposal is to counter-sue against the people who have the audacity to protest them at the funerals. To file suit (and in some sad cases win) against those who stand between the WBC and their victims.

They didn't win, but I know they tried to sue the San Diego Comic Con when they counter protested.

So by winning this and now having the right to protest at a funeral be a federally and constitutionally protected one, they have also opened the same rights to those people who stand to counter them.

They got what they asked for, but they didn't get what they wanted.

Now when a group want to hold "a remembrance for the fallen" and stand on Church Property the WBC can't do anything since it is a Federally and Constitutionally protected right. When the WBC protests at a college and a fraternity decides to stand on the fence and start shaking their money makers while "I'm coming out" is blaring on the stereo, they can't do anything because it's a Federally and Constitutionally protected right.

Basically before this we couldn't sue them but they could sue us. Now we still can't sue them, but they can no longer sue us.

We are the ones that actually gained ground here. Not the Westboro Baptist Church.

We win. Take that and shove it into your own urethra sideways Phelps!

[fireheart17]

I'm currently believing that argument with the preachers down my neck of the woods.

Similar arguments, except that they aren't picketing at funerals. They have been allowed to protest at their location. However because of that, it means that protest groups can do the exact same thing

[Duelist925]

It's a good thing it's 2011 and we now know it's not. Can't help that there are still people that are willfully ignorant but that doesn't mean we should have to tolerate them.

You missed the point entirely greenday. Its not about how wrong we were back then--views change, as we as a race grow and better ourselves.


Im gonna steal a bit from Men In Black here

Thousands of years ago, we KNEW the earth was flat.....before we developed enough math and fast enough runners for the greeks to prove otherwise.

Hundreds of years ago, we KNEW the earth was the center of the universe....before we developed telescopes and math enough to prove otherwise


a hundred years ago (and today, with some morons) Man KNEW he was better than Woman....until he got his head far enough out of his ass to realize otherwise. (the whole....sufferage movement may have helped unwedge said head. >.>)

Fifty years ago, the White KNEW it was superior to the Black (and Brown and etc etc), until, again, this nation got its head out of its ass enough to realize how fucking stupid that was.

Twenty, thirty years ago, we KNEW that aids only targeted sailors and gays, until medical science disproved this rediculous notion.

What do we KNOW now....that people twenty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand years down the line are going to shake their heads at, and cluck their tounges, and say, "Poor savages just didnt know any better, so glad we know this now"

[Polar Bear]

They force people who are Christian and not very vocal to decide if they want what WBC says to be representing their faith.

Unless a nontheist has a discussion with an open-minded theist, no amount of education or tolerance is going to convince the theist that he or she is wrong about [insert topic here]. Regarding the open-minded, but nonvocal theist; it's up to you to change their minds or kick their ass out of YOUR religion. Why some theist let the few loudmouthed bigots among them dictate the course and tone of their religion is beyond me.

For the record, I believe in a supreme being of infinite power or "God" for lack of a better word. It has neither a gender nor skin color. There are only four things you need for a relationship with this being - the being, honesty, sincerity, and yourself. Anything else is a distraction (e.g. "holy" texts, "holy" sites, "holy" men or women).

[draco664]

Our freedom of speech is pretty well protected around here. You can say stuff to an extent, but nobody pulls the "Freedom of speech" card.

Tell that to Andrew Bolt.

Background. Bolt is a hard conservative (who claims to be a libertarian) who wrote a couple of opinion pieces for the big daily paper in Melbourne. The content of the pieces was basically - There are people who identify as aboriginal, even though they have very little aboriginal blood, simply for the benefits they can get.

Nine people sued him using the racial discrimination act, basically taking him to court because they were offended. They won, on the basis that yes, they were definitely offended.

A few days ago, Bess Price (an aboriginal activist) basically said exactly the same thing, adding that becausethe white-skinned "aboriginies" taking funds and resources meant for those who are really suffering, that suffering is perpetuated.

We now have a situation where a bunch of white-skinned 'blackfellas' are verbally beating down an aboriginal activist because she offended them by not accepting them as aboriginial. And the progressive, latte-sipping set are cheering them on.

These people don't care that five-year-old kids in remote townships have sexually transmitted diseases. They don't care that kids do not get educations. For the firehose of funding to be kept on full blast into their pockets, there need to be plenty of kids suffering to justify it. Stopping the suffering means no more money for them.

Bolt is a tool - but defending free speech means defending it for people who say things you don't like.