|
Post by atheiess on May 7, 2009 8:21:45 GMT -5
Which is exactly why the British government was wrong to ban them from their country. The fifteen minutes of fame the Phelps are sucking out of the controversy caused by the decision is fifteen minutes more than they deserve. I've always believed that the best argument against fundy religion is the words of the fundies themselves (the existence of FSTDT is compelling evidence); letting the Phelps carry out their theatrics unheeded makes them look like the raving lunatics that they are. I've seen this guy in action. He's an ANGRY guy, as are the rest of his followers. They are one tiny step away from terrorist acts. As someone said, it's really tempting to take a swing at this guy and start a riot, which is probably what the Brits are trying to avoid. Whatever restraint and civility he had in the '80's and '90's is long gone. Hell, even Terry Fox thinks Phelps has gone off the deep end. If a country can justify banning a Hamas leader from entering, they can certainly justify banning Phelps - because he is nothing but a Christian extremist.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on May 7, 2009 11:31:54 GMT -5
Whatever restraint and civility he had in the '80's and '90's is long gone. Hell, even Terry Fox thinks Phelps has gone off the deep end. Apparently the guy used to be something of a liberal. I know people's politics can shift during their life, but that's something else. Edit for formatting.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 7, 2009 12:30:25 GMT -5
Well, that's rather unfortunate. If you sow the wind, you'll reap the whirlwind. One could make a rather solid argument that in this case, I'd be the whirlwind. No. You’ll have sold your own rights just to shut someone else up. I believe those standards were always there. BUT, there was no national spotlight for him, no one heard of him prior to this. I'm fairly certain any funeral he protested was upsetting people more, but there was not a mass knowledge of it, just a small group here and there that was pissed off. I hope you really don't think people 'accepted' that bullshit, aside from what few people loved him. He picketed at Matthew Shepard’s funeral in 1998, as well as at the trials of those who killed him. Phelps then had his peeps put up a “perpetual memorial” to Shepard, featuring his face in a ring of fire, on godhatesfags.com – a highly-trafficked hate site, even then. The internet may have been younger then, but the media was plenty old enough to condemn this behavior. Newspapers, television crews, radio hosts...I can name at least a dozen of them – and I’m talking about big names, not merely reporters on the ground – who’ve interviewed WBC extensively after the military pickets began, but only a handful from before. So GB's try at preventing violence there by banning Phelps and his butsechs fearing klan is bullshit? Would you also agree deporting foreigners that cause trouble and banning them is wrong? That depends on how you define “trouble.” I’ve already said I don’t support kicking people out of free-speech supporting countries for simple hate speech. Most hate speech is still free speech. There's free speech and then there's being a dick. You can oppose gay marriage and even just gays in general without inciting hatred. Canada has free speech but up here, if you're intentionally hateful, you can be arrested. All those posters they carry around saying "God hates fags"? Yeah they can't do that up here. They've protested, but we make them tone the hell down. There’s a huge overlap between “free speech” and “being a dick.” Where would you draw the line? At Phelps’ pickets? Or how about at Pat Robertson blaming Hurricane Katrina on abortion? (Because it’s not like Robertson was actually AT the funerals; he merely went on national television and told a bunch of grieving people they’d lost everything – most of their city and surrounding had been wiped off the map – because they were ebil sinners for tolerating abortion.) And no, I disagree: you can't oppose "gays in general" without it being hate-speech, anymore than you can oppose "blacks in general" without it being hate-speech. These are both innocent conditions of being. Whatever restraint and civility he had in the '80's and '90's is long gone. Hell, even Terry Fox thinks Phelps has gone off the deep end. Except for one little problem: He had no restraint in the 80s or 90s. He was just as bad then as now. Worse, perhaps, because he had a bunch of kids around to abuse. If you don’t believe me, then go to his radio sermons from 1987 and ‘88. ( WARNING: This link is to a page on godhatesfags.com). He was disbarred from practicing law in the State of Kansas in 1979. (Kansas v. Phelps, 598 P.2d 180, 185. Filed in 1979.) FUN FACT: His son, Fred Jr., an active member of the WBC, attended the Clinton-Gore inauguration in 1993.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 7, 2009 13:36:49 GMT -5
Well, let me use an example to explain my point. The first i heard of him was when he started picketing soldier's funerals. I considered him a tasteless, hateful bigot.
If he'd done that before, whether I heard of him or not, regardless of who's funeral, I'd still have and do think the same. The standards were always there. BUT, he was no where national attention like he is now.
I believe someone else posted a good example of what I meant earlier. He can incite and cause problems, from mere speech, to actual acts of violence. Seems like I said, they're stopping it before it happens as far as I see it.
Look at the fiasco with the muslims protests and riots over in Europe, I'm sure GB is worried that Phelps could cause a HUGE problem if he got the right audience
|
|
|
Post by perv on May 8, 2009 2:14:35 GMT -5
I'm against so-called hate speech laws, because there are a lot of people I hate for very good reasons. But personally I think Phelps crosses the line. Picketing random funerals is not speech. It's just harassment dressed up to look like speech.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on May 8, 2009 9:51:31 GMT -5
That depends on how you define “trouble.” I’ve already said I don’t support kicking people out of free-speech supporting countries for simple hate speech. Most hate speech is still free speech. Most. I agree, by the way. Phelps is not exactly your average Joe, though. At the very least, he's in the "high risk" group. That's the very least. Phelps and his ilk verbally and physically harass people at the funerals they picket. They often get restricted to protest away from the funeral because of this. Blocking entry to a funeral is not only poor taste, it can sometimes be abject bullying. Phelps has also walked the line between hate speech and incitement quite a few times. This guy is easily a step above other homophobes, bigots, and whatever else you might call him. Inother words, it's not so much his hate speech but the degree to which he's done it, and the other actions surrounding it.
|
|