Well guess what everyone? The US's supremecourt bellied up and is allowing these mother *** to continue doing what they do best, piss off everyone with their intollerant ignorance.
Supreme court ruled 8-1 in favor of this group of inbred *** citing that they have the freedom of speech on their side...
Westboro
|
Westboro
I just saw that..
I know one thing, The Supreme Court better stand on the side of the person who's finally had enough of this ***and snaps when they show up at their loved one's funeral and kills them. Sooner or later they're going to be attacked, it's only a matter of time. (When I say attacked I don't mean busting out their car window while they scurry away, either)
[+]
I know! I can't believe they are merging the servers again!
I for one welcome our new Diabolos Overlords, and hope they find their stay on Siren a pleasant one.
[+]
Siren.Kuz said: I know! I can't believe they are merging the servers again! I for one welcome our new Diabolos Overlords, and hope they find their stay on Siren a pleasant one.
[+]
Valefor.Slipispsycho said: Siren.Kuz said: I know! I can't believe they are merging the servers again! I for one welcome our new Diabolos Overlords, and hope they find their stay on Siren a pleasant one. and THAT'S the joke :D you won a cookie
[+]
I was just gonna post this ... you beat me!
Link to a story is here btw. Free speech is damn tough. Not sure what to do about a case like this. taking away a single bit of someones freedoms puts all of our freedoms in jeopardy. use your freedom of speech to join an angel wings program if westboro comes to your town. for those of you who don't know, when westboro pickets a funeral people put on angel wings and stand in front of them allowing the families to mourn in peace. showing tolerance even for idiots and standing up for every persons right to speak, no matter how stupid and hurtful it is, is the only way to overcome people like this.
[+]
I always believed one's freedom ends when the rights of others begin, maybe I'm wrong, but I like the idea.
I'm kind of curious what people would say (or more accurately if free speech would be held up even then) if something similar to what these *** do, if it was done outside a children's cancer hospital, or even in the lobby in full earshot of the children with cancer.
I'm all for free speech, but not on something like this, they want to hold these protest/marches/douchebaggery somewhere else than right by the church the funeral is in, fine. As far as I'm concerned their rights should be stripped the second they do this right by the church. Mark my words, one day soon they're going to push the wrong person, and some prosecutor is going to try and label the person who acted where everyone else failed, a cold blooded murderer.
[+]
Hate Westboro, agree with the court's decision.
Westboro is just a small family (Plus or minus a few people) cult of attention ***, and like any attention ***, they'll eventually draw some kind attention they don't want (Likely resulting in their establishment turned into ash) and finally shut up. But until that day, it's not the government's problem right now.
[+]
we have laws set up for this kind of thing. you don't wanna be protesting something one day and end up in jail like in some other countries. freedom of speech is sacred. it's good because you can say anything. limiting one persons speech will lead to limiting all speech. like zicdeh said, it's a small group of people. ignore them and they will go away. it's all the media attention they are getting that makes them seem like something bigger than a group of idiotic rednecks. think of them like neo-nazi's and the kkk. an unfortunate subculuture of america, but they are still americans. allow them to fade into obscurity.
Odin.Zicdeh said: Hate Westboro, agree with the court's decision. Freedom of speech.
[+]
Asura.Domz said: Well guess what everyone? The US's supremecourt bellied up and is allowing these mother *** to continue doing what they do best, piss off everyone with their intollerant ignorance. Supreme court ruled 8-1 in favor of this group of inbred *** citing that they have the freedom of speech on their side... i think ghandi said it best: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” i mean, if these idiots took the time to open their bible, and read that you're supposed to love your neighbor as yourself, regardless of what he his or has done... hey, maybe we weouldnt be portrayed like fanatic lunatics in the media! a gay man, a prostitute, a compulsive gambler, an ex con, no matter their past, even if its frowned upon by the good book, as a christian one should be accepting of them, just as christ was 2000 years ago. (remember on golgotha where he told the theif he'd be in paradise? yeah, read a little more westboro baptist church, y'all are retards, homosexuality or hetero, were all the same people)
[+]
Quote: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious. The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. i dont think the constitution covers this even if its protesting 'peacefully.' it should be considered a hatecrime. since when was Freedom of Speech enforced?
O.o Isn't anyone upset about this, where's Al Sharpton, where are the protesters, where are the people who are easily butthurt about anything?! Pandemonium.Spicyryan said: Asura.Domz said: Well guess what everyone? The US's supremecourt bellied up and is allowing these mother *** to continue doing what they do best, piss off everyone with their intollerant ignorance. Supreme court ruled 8-1 in favor of this group of inbred *** citing that they have the freedom of speech on their side... The supreme court ruled how they were supposed to?! OH MY! How dare they follow the constitution! STFU to all the intolerance Nazis, the US constitution does not grant you the right to live your life free from offense. Actually it's quite the opposite I'm actually on the same side of the fence as Spicy? <runs and jumps out window> Andylynn said: Quote: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious. The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. i dont think the constitution covers this even if its protesting 'peacefully.' it should be considered a hatecrime. Aren't all crimes "hate-crimes"? If not, can you please describe a "love-crime"? Cerberus.Zandra said: Andylynn said: Quote: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious. The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. i dont think the constitution covers this even if its protesting 'peacefully.' it should be considered a hatecrime. Aren't all crimes "hate-crimes"? If not, can you please describe a "love-crime"?
[+]
Cerberus.Zandra said: Andylynn said: Quote: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious. The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. i dont think the constitution covers this even if its protesting 'peacefully.' it should be considered a hatecrime. Aren't all crimes "hate-crimes"? If not, can you please describe a "love-crime"? Cerberus.Zandra said: Andylynn said: Quote: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious. The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. i dont think the constitution covers this even if its protesting 'peacefully.' it should be considered a hatecrime. Aren't all crimes "hate-crimes"? If not, can you please describe a "love-crime"? I could rob someone and not hate them. Cerberus.Zandra said: Aren't all crimes "hate-crimes"? If not, can you please describe a "love-crime"? E.X.: say a hacker went around hacking the accounts of only good plds, tossing their gear, and deleting their characters just because he thinks mnks should be the only tank. PLD hate crime!! (dumb example, but still)
[+]
Rape could be a love crime, at least for the person doing the rape.
But yea, as Flion said, you don't have to hate someone to steal something, or beat them up etc. "love" crime = crime of passion...
coming home to find your spouse in bed with someone else will drive anyone to grab their gun/knife/bat/fists and do the primal dance of Neanderthal domination. Ifrit.Kungfuhustle said: "love" crime = crime of passion... coming home to find your spouse in bed with someone else will drive anyone to grab their gun/knife/bat/fists and do the primal dance of Neanderthal domination. Shiva.Flionheart said: Cerberus.Zandra said: Andylynn said: Quote: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious. The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. i dont think the constitution covers this even if its protesting 'peacefully.' it should be considered a hatecrime. Aren't all crimes "hate-crimes"? If not, can you please describe a "love-crime"? I could rob someone and not hate them. I think that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Of course you hate them or harbor some manifestation of hatetowards them, you're ROBBING them. You are judging them to be unworthy of the very thing you're stealing. Cerberus.Zandra said: Shiva.Flionheart said: Cerberus.Zandra said: Andylynn said: Quote: To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious. The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. i dont think the constitution covers this even if its protesting 'peacefully.' it should be considered a hatecrime. Aren't all crimes "hate-crimes"? If not, can you please describe a "love-crime"? I could rob someone and not hate them. I think that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Of course you hate them or harbor some manifestation of hatetowards them, you're ROBBING them. You are judging them to be unworthy of the very thing you're stealing. it doesn't require you to hate somebody to steal their ***, that's the dumbest thing I've heard today.
[+]
Fenrir.Stiklelf said: Ifrit.Kungfuhustle said: "love" crime = crime of passion... coming home to find your spouse in bed with someone else will drive anyone to grab their gun/knife/bat/fists and do the primal dance of Neanderthal domination. Andylynn said: Cerberus.Zandra said: Aren't all crimes "hate-crimes"? If not, can you please describe a "love-crime"? E.X.: say a hacker went around hacking the accounts of only good plds, tossing their gear, and deleting their characters just because he thinks mnks should be the only tank. PLD hate crime!! (dumb example, but still) No I understand we live in a society that has a definition for such acts, I'm just citing that its stupid, as all crimes are based in part on some form of hate. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.