Hypocrisy doesn't make an argument invalid.

emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC

Quote from: Lemy the Lizerd on January 08, 2015, 08:37:54 AM

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 08:34:44 AM

emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC

O.....kaaayyyy.

.___________________________________.

EDIT:  Lel I can't see the fucking picture.

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 08:34:44 AM

The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions.  If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.

That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Same goes for hate speech.  What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC.  As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead."  The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.

This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor:  While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.

Yelling "FIRE" or "BOMB" in a heavily crowded place is SEVERLY different than saying "God hates fags". One of the two will lead to people getting trampled and hurt and the the other is just some guy waving a sign around

The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions.  If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.

That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Same goes for hate speech.  What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC.  As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead."  The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.

This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor:  While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 08:34:44 AM

The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions.  If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.

That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Same goes for hate speech.  What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC.  As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead."  The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.

This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor:  While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.

So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"

Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.

Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 09:41:15 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 08, 2015, 09:20:34 AM

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 08:34:44 AM

The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions.  If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.

That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Same goes for hate speech.  What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC.  As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead."  The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.

This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor:  While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.

So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"

Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.

Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.

So basically your argument is "I can laugh at people freely and say how excited I am to see that their family member is dead because I am a huge cunt."

Again, read the article I posted.  It gives a nice intake at both sides of this kind of discussion.  I'm all for "speaking your mind", but if your purpose is to do nothing but entrap people into a "fight or flight" mentality by jeering a close one's demise, then that's stepping over the line.

No, my argument is anti censorship. When I get down to the crux of your argument, all it really espouses is silencing the dissenting point of view because muh feelings and appeal to emotions. It's subconscious fascism really.

I'm on my phone at work, but I'll give your article a read when I get home.

Nice strawman by the way.

Quote from: Lemy the Lizerd on January 08, 2015, 10:59:02 AM

The solution to WBC faggotry is to establish a law or legal precedent that treats a funeral as a private event and allows the Christfags to be removed from the premises, not to violate their right to freedom of expression.

Michigan Criminal Law and Proceedure book, chapter 18
Disorderly Conduct at Funerals - MCL 750.167d (felony)

A person shall not do any of the following within 500 feet of a building or other location where a funeral, memorial service, or viewing of a deceased person is being conducted or within 500 feet of a funeral procession or burial:

(A) Make any statement or gesture or engage in any conduct that would make a reasonable person attending the funeral, memorial service, or viewing, ect, under the circumstances feel intimidated threatened, or harassed.

(B) Make any statement or gesture or engage in any conduct intended to incite or produce a breach of the peace among those attending that funeral, memorial service, viewing, or burial or traveling in that procession and that causes  a breach of the peace among those attending that funeral, memorial service ect.

(C) Make any statement or gesture or engage in any contact intended to disrupt the funeral, memorial service ECT.

First offence 2 year felony
Second offence 4 year felony

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 08, 2015, 09:20:34 AM

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 08:34:44 AM

The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions.  If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.

That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Same goes for hate speech.  What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC.  As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead."  The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.

This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor:  While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.

So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"

Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.

Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.

I'd really like to see you not lose your shit when somebody protests your brother's funeral.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on January 08, 2015, 09:20:34 AM

Quote from: Nick McIntyre on January 08, 2015, 08:34:44 AM

The "Freedom of Speech" thing is blown out of so many proportions.  If I recall correctly (I'll look it up later, I've got morning chores to do) it was initially installed in our Government so that a person could freely express themselves in council chambers without the wrath of the Government falling on them.

That does not mean, however, you can shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and cause a panic.

Same goes for hate speech.  What "muh free speeches" people fail to realize is the emotional trauma, harm, and social discord that comes from people like the WBC.  As you probably saw in that thread, a man attacked a church member during his soldier brother's funeral because the protestor was mocking his brother, discrediting his service, and saying, "I'm glad the stupid faggot is dead."  The soldier got soundly punished while the protestor got to walk away laughing.

This article is a nice thing to read through, especially the parts from the Fordham Law Professor:  While free speech protects people from harm, it allows unlimited emotional harm.

So basically what your argument boils down to is "delicate sensibilities take precedence over what you can and cannot say"

Yeah no. I personally do not give two shits if you become "emotionally traumatised " as a result of what I said. I do not, and never will recognise it as a justification to curtail mine, or anyone else's speech.

Yelling fire in a crowded vicinity isn't even a relevant analogy either.

I'd really like to see you not lose your shit when somebody protests your brother's funeral.

Is it a "dissenting" point of view when a person from the Westroll Baptist Church goes to a funeral for the purpose of starting a social fire, or is it shit being stirred up to intentionally cause trouble, entrap people, and wait for them to retaliate?

Alright, I myself am growing tired of the dead soldier argument since you're resorting to only calling it a strawman.  Let's use a different example:

Decimator Omega.

Yes.  Him.  Remember that sperglord?  A few weeks ago, a few members strolled onto one of his sites and began to harass him there.  They knew how emotionally unstable Decimator was, yet continued to harass him until he finally exploded and went into a borderline-suicide mode.  Icy eventually managed to get him to calm down.

Now let's look at this from a real-life point of view, but leave someone like Icy out of the situation.  People harass a mentally unstable person, then said person ends up either taking their own life or causes a violent incident due being mentally harassed.  Is your precious free speech still protected, or is it a mental assault?

Like I said in my previous post:  I have nothing against speaking your mind, but when you intentionally egg people on at funerals, laughing and mocking someone's deceased family member or causing emotional trauma via my Decimator example, then that's where your free speech ends.  It's no longer free speech, it's asking for a fight and a public incident to take place, which ends up being costly on society in general.