Lets help solve a problem - The hate group WBC

[Seranthor]

But it is his Second Amendment right to bear arms so because of that should it be ok for him to shoot someone since with there 1st amendment right they can say whatever they want with nothing happening to them.

My point stands there needs to be some law or something pass to keep crap like this from happening.

Then offer up your 'law'.

[Brash]

I don't see how they spread anything but hate. Freedom of Speech is definitely one of the most important freedoms we have, but I don't see how stripping them of their tax-exepmt status denies them this freedom.

[Kasierith]

But it is his Second Amendment right to bear arms so because of that should it be ok for him to shoot someone since with there 1st amendment right they can say whatever they want with nothing happening to them.

My point stands there needs to be some law or something pass to keep crap like this from happening.

The 2nd amendment gives a limited right to be the owner of firearms.... it does not allow anything like murder, and I have no idea where you're getting this.

[Spectral]

I don't see how they spread anything but hate. Freedom of Speech is definitely one of the most important freedoms we have, but I don't see how stripping them of their tax-exepmt status denies them this freedom.

Stripping them of their tax exempt status is the government having a preference for one religion over another. That's also forbidden by the first Amendment. We could, of course, just do away with the idea that religious organizations shouldn't be taxed though.

[Jtbrig7390]

Remember when I said that you don't really understand what a right is? Yeah.[COLOR="red"]

You seem to not get my point maybe I didn't word it right.

With the 2nd amendment a person has the right to bear arms but dose not have the right to shoot someone in the face for fun or whatever.

With the 1st amendment a person has the right to protest and all but there is a such thing as crossing the line "like if the guy used his gun to shoot someone for fun"

You should have the right to freedom of speech but depending on what you say you should get into trouble for it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 04:47 AM ----------

The 2nd amendment gives a limited right to be the owner of firearms.... it does not allow anything like murder, and I have no idea where you're getting this.

read my reply above to spectral it was a point i was making.

[Kasierith]

You seem to not get my point maybe I didn't word it right.

With the 2nd amendment a person has the right to bear arms but dose not have the right to shoot someone in the face for fun or whatever.

With the 1st amendment a person has the right to protest and all but there is a such thing as crossing the line "like if the guy used his gun to shoot someone for fun"

You should have the right to freedom of speech but depending on what you say you should get into trouble for it.

Your point is completely nonsensical. The 2nd amendment does not give any right concerning how to use it; it only gives rights to its possession. The 1st amendment, however, was specifically put in to protect minorities from being silenced by the community and by the government. It is meant to allow those with controversial ideals to voice their will, even if their will runs counter to the established body of power. In other words.... it was put in to protect people from those like you who disagree with their message and therefore want to silence them.

[Spectral]

Wouldn't have a problem with that to be honest, but that's just from my biased opinion of not liking religion. Real world ramifications might prevent that though, since I'm not exactly certain how much being tax-exempt helps churches (Guessing it's a lot yes?)

(Asking this while feigning complete ignorance on the subject), Do churches make enough money to support the removal of tax-exemptions?

We could always just treat them the same as every other non-profit organization. As long as they're legitimate non-profits, it shouldn't be a problem at all. If they're not? Go ahead and pay up.

[Jtbrig7390]

Your point is completely nonsensical. The 2nd amendment does not give any right concerning how to use it; it only gives rights to its possession. The 1st amendment, however, was specifically put in to protect minorities from being silenced by the community and by the government. It is meant to allow those with controversial ideals to voice their will, even if their will runs counter to the established body of power. In other words.... it was put in to protect people from those like you who disagree with their message and therefore want to silence them.

If I walk up to obama and tell him I'm going to shoot him in the face guess what would happen...I would be arrested but its my 1st Amendment right to say it.

Its late I'm done if you don't get my point after that I really can't be asked...

As I said early'er the constitution needs to change with the times atm it is just making the US look like a bunch of idiots to the rest of the world.

And letting idiots like (WBC) get away with stupid crap.

[Brash]

We could always just treat them the same as every other non-profit organization. As long as they're legitimate non-profits, it shouldn't be a problem at all. If they're not? Go ahead and pay up.

This is more the point I was getting at, guess I should have been more clear. Also, to the people who say the cause no measurable harm, what if the parents of one of these children, say a single mother, is so distraught with the added pressure of these protests she kills herself, then are they responsible? (e.g. the aussie djs with the kate middleton prank)

[Spectral]

This is more the point I was getting at, guess I should have been more clear. Also, to the people who say the cause no measurable harm, what if the parents of one of these children, say a single mother, is so distraught with the added pressure of these protests she kills herself, then are they responsible? (e.g. the aussie djs with the kate middleton prank)

I would say they are not responsible, but it would really depend on the specific situation. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a civil suit. Nonetheless, I think people should only be held responsible for what they could expect a reasonable reaction to their words would be. We're going to get into some fuzzy territory if we start penalizing speakers when people that aren't mentally stable act badly on hearing something that upsets them.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

this is no longer the 1800's the constitution needs to change and reflect this its as simple as that.

constitution be dammed show up to me kids funeral see if it saves you (WBC) from getting your ass kicked there is a such thing as taking something to far.

So basically, you're saying that an appropriate response to people saying you don't like is violence? How civilized.

Also, the technology for moving your mouth hasn't changed much since the 1800s.

You see no harm in them bashing a dead child and there family or the recent crap there doing???????????????.

Lets say they pull that stunt again and the father snaps and kills all of them for running there mouth right. Its ok no harm done right.... Evil breeds evil its that simple they going to keep this crap up and someone is going to snap back in a hard way.

The father made the choice to do that. If you're going to blame the words of others for his actions, can I go rob a bank and blame it on the media glorifying criminals?

This is more the point I was getting at, guess I should have been more clear. Also, to the people who say the cause no measurable harm, what if the parents of one of these children, say a single mother, is so distraught with the added pressure of these protests she kills herself, then are they responsible? (e.g. the aussie djs with the kate middleton prank)

No. The nurse involved in that prank made a choice to kill herself.

If I walk up to obama and tell him I'm going to shoot him in the face guess what would happen...I would be arrested but its my 1st Amendment right to say it.

Except for 1) you would not get anywhere near Obama and 2) that would fall under threats anyway. You're trying to compare apples with oranges.

Its late I'm done if you don't get my point after that I really can't be asked...

As I said early'er the constitution needs to change with the times atm it is just making the US look like a bunch of idiots to the rest of the world.

And letting idiots like (WBC) get away with stupid crap.

We get your point, it's just a stupid one.

[Kasierith]

If I walk up to obama and tell him I'm going to shoot him in the face guess what would happen...I would be arrested but its my 1st Amendment right to say it.

Its late I'm done if you don't get my point after that I really can't be asked...

As I said early'er the constitution needs to change with the times atm it is just making the US look like a bunch of idiots to the rest of the world.

Perhaps when you rest on it, you'll see where your view of the 1st amendment is off.

Threatening the president falls under this, if I'm not mistaken (which i very well could be, no idea what the actual law is). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

[Rokom]

If I walk up to obama and tell him I'm going to shoot him in the face guess what would happen...I would be arrested but its my 1st Amendment right to say it.

Its late I'm done if you don't get my point after that I really can't be asked...

As I said early'er the constitution needs to change with the times atm it is just making the US look like a bunch of idiots to the rest of the world.

And letting idiots like (WBC) get away with stupid crap.

That's because you would legitimately be threatening him. While I think the WBC are despicable assholes, they technically don't step into the bounds of telling people to actually kill anyone else, nor do they threaten anyone themselves. The problem with restricting their tax exempt status is that it shows favor to other, different points of view while silencing another, even if we view it as wrong. The whole point of free speech is that of allowing every voice to be heard, no matter how horrible or against the flow it may be.

[Seranthor]

If I walk up to obama and tell him I'm going to shoot him in the face guess what would happen...I would be arrested but its my 1st Amendment right to say it.

Its late I'm done if you don't get my point after that I really can't be asked...

As I said early'er the constitution needs to change with the times atm it is just making the US look like a bunch of idiots to the rest of the world.

And letting idiots like (WBC) get away with stupid crap.

There is this funny thing called 18 USC § 871, You'd end up in jail faster than you can so 'oh shit'

And of course you want to run away from the argument, we asked you to offer your changes to the first amendment and you continue to carry on saying it needs to be changed... ok... lets change it... what the fuck do you want it to say today?

[Themius]

No way. This group is a shining example that freedom of speech protects everyone, no matter how much we dislike what they have to say.

We label them as hate groups, who else? Atheists? They're trying to destroy Christmas. What about the gays? They are destroying marriage. Give me any social movement and a group of people would be happy to label the followers as a "hate group."

Do you see why constitution absolutely has to be enforced despite popular opinion?

The KKK is a hate group but they hare freedom of speech, so why would you say "no way"?

[Kasierith]

The KKK is a hate group but they hare freedom of speech, so why would you say "no way"?

Aren't they restricted in more ways than other groups are?

[Themius]

Aren't they restricted in more ways than other groups are?

Not really... they can protest, go places and protest, march all over the place, and they are recognized as a hate group.

[Jtbrig7390]

There is this funny thing called 18 USC § 871, You'd end up in jail faster than you can so 'oh shit'

And of course you want to run away from the argument, we asked you to offer your changes to the first amendment and you continue to carry on saying it needs to be changed... ok... lets change it... what the fuck do you want it to say today?

Done answered that many times over if you don't like the answer given its not my problem.

there needs to be a law to protect those who do not wish to hear some bible thumper run there mouth on a dead child or on events like the most recent one with the school shooting.

I'm done enjoy yourselfs.

I live in the US and personally I say fuck the constitution the rest of the world lives just fine weather your in Japan/UK/Canada without these rules so why can't we...OOO wait we want to be different and look where it has gotten us so far.

[Kasierith]

Done answered that many times over if you don't like the answer given its not my problem.
.

Think, for 5 minutes, what no freedom of speech did for my country.

Want to know why you don't hear of many artists from the Soviet Era? There are a few, to be sure..... but ya....

[Spectral]

I live in the US and personally I say fuck the constitution the rest of the world lives just fine weather your in Japan/UK/Canada without these rules so why can't we...OOO wait we want to be different and look where it has gotten us so far.

I don't usually go this direction, but you could always leave.