# Petition urges White House to classify Westboro church as hate group



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Petition urges White House to classify Westboro church as hate group*

Reuters - 17 hrs ago











Enlarge Photo
Reuters/Reuters - Two male protestors kiss next to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church outside the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida August 28, 2012. REUTERS/Philip Andrews

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 475,000 people have signed petitions asking the White House to crack down on Westboro Baptist Church after the group, known for holding anti-gay demonstrations at funerals, threatened to picket in Newtown, Connecticut.
Newtown was the site of a school massacre on December 14 in which 20 young children and six adults were killed.
Five petitions posted on the White House website since the shootings have asked the government to name the church, based in Topeka, Kansas, as a hate group or end its tax-exempt status. The requests were among the most popular on the White House site on Thursday.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization, has called the church "arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America" because of the anti-gay signs its members have carried at hundreds of military funerals. The protests reflect their view that God is punishing America for tolerance of gays and lesbians.
The church has successfully defended its right to free speech in court. The church could not be immediately reached for comment.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on whether it would address the petitions.

http://news.yahoo.com/petition-urges-white-house-classify-westboro-church-hate-192906943.html


----------



## niteowl1970 (Jul 7, 2009)

Signed


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2012)

I do believe the WBC is disgusting and despicable in their protests and beliefs, but I would hate for this to set a precedent. If one "church" can be designated as a "hate group", then what's going to stop other religious organizations from being outlawed from protesting? Or even just publicly acknowledging their beliefs? If a Christian group was protesting gay marriage, would they be arrested for hate speech? This is a very slippery slope...

Sent from my wicked smaht DROID RAZR


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

> end its tax-exempt status.


At the time that I posted this in another thread a couple weeks ago they were well over the required signatures. I'll be surprised if barry acts on it.
Inbred defects like these are a threat to our country. I'm tired of the media portraying their atty. members as geniuses. Any monkeys that have spent their lives memorizing passages and twisting them to their favor can do the same with the law, just look at the libs we have on the bench.
I see your point, RAR, but what stops any freak from claiming themselves a church for tax exempt status?


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2012)

LGriffin said:


> I see your point, RAR, but what stops any freak from claiming themselves a church for tax exempt status?


I don't know what the rules are now for designating a "church", but there must be some guidelines or everyone would be a church. My issue is if one already established church can be designated as a "hate group" and have certain rights taken away, what's to stop any other church from having their rights removed as well? I would be more supportive of some policy on picketing funerals, that would apply to everyone.

Sent from my wicked smaht DROID RAZR


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2012)

"Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection" - Neal Boortz.

If Westboro, as disgusting as they are, is censored, it could be you, me, and this website next.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

Delta784 said:


> "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection" - Neal Boortz.
> 
> If Westboro, as disgusting as they are, is censored, it could be you, me, and this website next.


 AGREED. They should have been "taken care" of long ago by . . .


----------



## frapmpd24 (Sep 3, 2004)

Delta784 said:


> "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection" - Neal Boortz.
> 
> If Westboro, as disgusting as they are, is censored, it could be you, me, and this website next.





right.as.rain said:


> I do believe the WBC is disgusting and despicable in their protests and beliefs, but I would hate for this to set a precedent. If one "church" can be designated as a "hate group", then what's going to stop other religious organizations from being outlawed from protesting? Or even just publicly acknowledging their beliefs? If a Christian group was protesting gay marriage, would they be arrested for hate speech? This is a very slippery slope...
> 
> Sent from my wicked smaht DROID RAZR


Ironically the people signing the petition are using the same amendment to redress their grievance as WBC is to express themselves freely.

As abhorrent as WBC is, they have the first amendment on their side. When they protest funerals they carefully play within the framework of the first amendment, established precedent, and levels of judicial scrutiny. Keep in mind, Phelps was a high profile civil rights attorney; he knows the drill. They picket on the sidewalk (traditional public forum) along the route, not at the steps of the church if there is a law creating a reasonable buffer zone, notify the local police they are coming, and they either remain silent and hold signs, use words, or sing (all forms of expression) etc...

Read Snyder v. Phelps, SCOTUS outlines how they operate within these parameters. They use traditional public forums to spread their BS, which are places "historically reserved for the dissemination of information and the communication of ideas", such as parks, sidewalks, and streets. The government may not close traditional public forums but may place reasonable restrictions on their use (think "reasonable" buffer zone for abortion clinic, funeral, etc.). The other two forums where expression is less protected are limited public forums and nonpublic forums.

Are they viewed as A-Holes? Yes! Are they racist and bigoted? Absolutely! Do they stir it up by using expression (words, not physical acts) that the powers to be in government don't like to hear or see? Yes they do! All of the above could be (and were likely) said about the founding fathers too. They weren't exactly popular among the colonial governors I presume.

There are a lot of people around here that don't hesitate to express their views of Barack Hussein, Doucheval Patrick, and Fauxcahontis that could be construed as offensive to a clear majority of the lame brain democRAT sheeple in this state. Should the first amendment not apply to us merely because an overly sensitive weak in the knees liberal might be offended?

To review WBC's tax exempt status, that's okay to make sure it is legit. To restrict their expression because it is offensive, that's dangerous. There is a difference between hate speech (words alone) and hate crimes (acts), the two should not be blurred.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

I agree with the majority here. As vile and disgusting they may be, I believe that as Americans they have a fundamental right to do what they do. Just as The Patriot Guard has every right to park their motorcycles along the street and leave the engines running to drown out the noise.


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

They're not Americans! They're terrorists circumventing the system by destroying the moral fabric of our country as much as any other parasite on our land destroying us from within. I find it very hard to believe that our founding fathers would want this protected as free speech. These fools would've been hanged or burned at the stake for picketing a funeral.

Every reasonable person finds these nuts offensive and society has decayed to such a point that I cannot stand to see it go down any further. This is hate speech and it is fundamentally wrong. They're hateful bullies attempting to incite individuals mourning the loss of a loved one, not individuals exercising their right to free speech. These are funerals. Mourners cannot simply walk away. They're held hostage to what these attention whores have to broadcast.

They can spew their crap anywhere else but funerals should be left alone.
It's free speech to say you're not going to a funeral because the deceased is an asshole.
Standing at the funeral of a stranger, holding obscene signs and screaming about what God hates is not free speech.


----------



## Joel98 (Mar 2, 2011)

Delta784 said:


> "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection" - Neal Boortz.
> 
> If Westboro, as disgusting as they are, is censored, it could be you, me, and this website next.


I completely agree


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2012)

LGriffin said:


> Standing at the funeral of a stranger, holding obscene signs and screaming about what God hates is not free speech.


Yes, it is.

I don't like it, but it is what it is, and the SCOTUS has already ruled on it.


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

> Snyder filed a diversity action against Phelps, his daughters-who participated in the picketing-and the church (collectively Westboro) alleging, as relevant here, state tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. A jury held Westboro liable for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Westboro challenged the verdict as grossly excessive and sought judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the First Amendment fully protected its speech. The District Court reduced the punitive damages award, but left the verdict otherwise intact. The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that Westboro's statements were entitled to First Amendment protection because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric.


I'm certainly not a communist but_ i'm speeking out--_
I fully realize that my opinion is not going to change anything, but it's what we do on masscops.

I'm going to need a great deal of assistance trying to see your point here because I see things in black and white. If I understand correctly, in this forum what i'm saying is _unpopular speech_. If I say, God hates you and you should all die! Well, that's just fucking nuts. If I get some mental defects to "peacefully" hold signs about it at your loved ones funeral...again, poking the bear, inciting.

Fair fights are fine. Kicking someone when they're down is wrong so I can't get my head around picketing at funerals and frankly, as a cop, I certainly didn't agree with every decision pooped out of the SC. I've only got two guys there, Justices Alito and Scalia.

Looking into this, I can't be too far off my rocker here because Justice Alito dissented in the case and Justice Scalia was hung up on the claim of emotional distress resulting from wbc using a few platforms to attack the victims son. The victim never saw the actual picketing at the funeral and could have chosen not to watch them on the internet and television.

My father is a Vietnam Veteran. I don't know how these freaks decide what to picket but their god better help them if they picket my Fathers funeral holding signs that say, "Pray for more dead kids" and "Thank god for Dead Soldiers." A thousand feet will not be far enough for them.


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

The fact that it angers you so much should only reinforce how important the need for such speech to be protected.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2012)

LG- I completely understand what you're saying, and I agree that they're crazy, disgusting, and wrong in everything they say and do. The point here is that IF we say that their actions and words are illegal, then that can make everything we say and do here illegal as well. Imagine no longer being allowed to say anything in any public forum which may be considered hurtful or insulting or offensive to others who hear/see/read it, for fear of arrest/prosecution. That would be an injustice far beyond what the twisted WBC could ever do. Just like if one guy with a gun shoots someone, and people want to declare guns illegal. It sets a precedent that could be very dangerous to our rights.

Sent from my wicked smaht DROID RAZR


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

Okay, I see what you're saying about the bigger picture. My point is like that of Scalias in that you can easily choose to avoid masscops or block me if you don't like what I post. You can't leave your loved ones funeral and you shouldn't be taunted there. Funerals should be protected.
I don't mind these fools posting away on their website, youtube or holding signs in other locations but seeking out a dead soldier or child and making a scene at their funeral is unacceptable.


----------



## PBC FL Cop (Oct 22, 2003)

Free speech really depends on the speech. Hate speech is tolerated in some instances but not others. Why this particular hate speech is allowed and other speech is not, who knows. Attacks on people's speech is nothing new as the following articles show:
"Two weeks ago, the President of the United States went to Mexico to talk to the President of Mexico about drugs,'' New Jersey State Police Colonel Carl Williams was quoted as saying. ''He didn't go to Ireland. He didn't go to England. Today, with this drug problem, the drug problem is cocaine or marijuana. It is most likely a minority group that's involved with that.'' Colonel Williams. Gov. Christine Todd Whitman *fired* Col. Williams as Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police yesterday after a published report quoted him as saying it was naive to think that race was not an issue in drug crimes and that cocaine and marijuana traffickers were most likely to be members of minority groups.

The ESPN editor *fired* Sunday for using "***** in the armor" in a headline about Knicks phenom Jeremy Lin said the racial slur never crossed his mind - and he was devastated when he realized his mistake.
_*Papa John's *pizza chain has apologized to a woman in New York City after an employee used a racial slur to identify the customer on a receipt on Friday (Jan. 6), calling the woman "lady ****** eyes." __Minhee Cho, the customer in question, drew attention to the slur when she tweeted, "Hey @PapaJohns just FYI my name isn't 'lady ****** eyes,'" along with the above picture. __The tweet and picture subsequently went viral on the internet. Papa John's saw the tweet directed their way and tweeted in response, "We are very upset by recent receipt issue in New York & sincerely apologize to our customer. Franchise employee involved is being *terminated"* and "Please know the employee has been terminated & a formal apology has been given. We've also reached out to customer personally."_

A California woman has been *fired* from her job as an ice cream store manager after she referred to President Barack Obama with a racial slur on Facebook 
Denise Helms, 22, of Turlock, posted the Facebook statement on Tuesday night after Obama won re-election to a second term. The post referred to the president using the N word. "Maybe he will get assassinated this term..!!" Helms wrote.

_The Leominster police officer accused of aiming racial slurs at Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford was *fired* Thursday._

A former Mobile Fire-Rescue Department captain, accused of using a racial slur in the presence of the first and only female African-American firefighter in the city, has been *demoted*.

_*CBS* announced Thursday that it has *fired* Don Imus from his radio program, following a week of uproar over the radio host's derogatory comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. "There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," *CBS* President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision._
A Towson University adjunct professor was *fired* last week after using a racially insensitive term in his art class. Allen Zaruba, a local artist who had taught at Towson for 12 years, said he was discussing provocative works depicted in textbook chapters on the body and identity when he used the term. "I think that the university firing him on the base of using a racially charged word is an excuse to escape criticism from across the university," Jackson said. "At worst, it could be a racially insensitive analogy, but to call the university a 'corporate plantation' would be a deep statement that directly challenges the politics of this university."

_Pres. Obama told the radio host, "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is* a typical white person*, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society." Obama was already drawing flak for his association with a controversial preacher in Chicago who has made anti-American and antiwhite comments. Re-elected..._


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

PBC FL Cop said:


> Free speech really depends on the speech. Hate speech is tolerated in some instances but not others. Why this particular hate speech is allowed and other speech is not, who knows. Attacks on people's speech is nothing new as the following articles show:
> "Two weeks ago, the President of the United States went to Mexico to talk to the President of Mexico about drugs,'' New Jersey State Police Colonel Carl Williams was quoted as saying. ''He didn't go to Ireland. He didn't go to England. Today, with this drug problem, the drug problem is cocaine or marijuana. It is most likely a minority group that's involved with that.'' Colonel Williams. Gov. Christine Todd Whitman *fired* Col. Williams as Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police yesterday after a published report quoted him as saying it was naive to think that race was not an issue in drug crimes and that cocaine and marijuana traffickers were most likely to be members of minority groups.
> 
> The ESPN editor *fired* Sunday for using "***** in the armor" in a headline about Knicks phenom Jeremy Lin said the racial slur never crossed his mind - and he was devastated when he realized his mistake.
> ...


All of those people were fired or faced sanctions at their job. Not one of them was charged with a crime or prosecuted. That's what the 1st Amendment protects against. It doesn't say you can say whatever you want without consequences. It says you can say just about whatever you want without going to jail or a re-education camp (for now).


----------



## Dan Stark (Aug 2, 2005)

Wolfman said:


> Speech absolutely should be protected but that in no way translates to insulation from responsibility for what is said. I call my boss at the TV shop a fuckhead, that's my right. If he wants to fire me for it, that's his right and something I must consider before opening my mouth.
> 
> Rights <-> Responsibilities <-> Repercussions


Exactly. 2 sides of same coin.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

I would be very unhappy if I could not call Obama a f-in asshole, the boys in the black
suv's may not like it but it's my opinion and my right to be able to say it.


----------



## PBC FL Cop (Oct 22, 2003)

lofu said:


> All of those people were fired or faced sanctions at their job. Not one of them was charged with a crime or prosecuted. That's what the 1st Amendment protects against. It doesn't say you can say whatever you want without consequences. It says you can say just about whatever you want without going to jail or a re-education camp (for now).


The 1st Amendment has gone well beyond merely being charged with a crime. There are numerous case laws which deal with non-criminal free speech cases. Many cases involving schools for example, investigate free speech issues without criminal charges being associated.


----------



## Mr Scribbles (Jul 7, 2012)

As much as I disagree with EVERYTHING WBC stands for, and feel their venue is despicable, it was the 1st Amendment that brought me here-after attacks on the BPPA's Newsletter (PAX Centurion), and its editor/staff. I have to agree with the herd on this-it's their right to say what they want. And if anyone wants to exercise their "fist "amendment rights so be it. There could be consequences, and if some dad from Sandy Hook, or a soldier's brother popped on of these idiots, I'd hope a judge wouldn't think twice before throwing that A&B out


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

PBC FL Cop said:


> The 1st Amendment has gone well beyond merely being charged with a crime. There are numerous case laws which deal with non-criminal free speech cases. Many cases involving schools for example, investigate free speech issues without criminal charges being associated.


Exactly, and most of those cases have ruled that school (like work) is not a public place and you can face sanctions for your actions.

Unfortunately, the inbred freaks from Westboro are in a public place spewing their insanity.


----------

