Legally Recognize Westboro Church As A Hate Group

[x635 4,066]

Read this article about their plans to protest at Newtown funerals: http://newtown.patch.com/articles/westboro-baptist-church-member-says-group-will-picket-sandy-hook-elementary

I usually don't make postings like this, and forum rules generally disallows this type of thread, but I took some liberty because these people need to be stopped somehow. They are planning, or at least are claiming to protest at funerals for the Sandy Hook Elementary victims.

I don't know where to start on why the people is this group is worse then scum, and I'm quite suprised they haven't been assinated yet. Yes, I know that these people want media coverage, but they need to be stopped, 1st Amendment rights or not. Ignoring them, including the media, may be the best bet, will only lead them to be more intense.

They push the 1st amendment to the extreme to push messages of extremism hate. This picture says a lot about them and what they do at funerals and do their best to make sure the mourning families see them.

Sign the petition on the White House website. 155,000 signatures and counting:
https://petitions.wh...-group/DYf3pH2d

Read this article about their plans to protest at Newtown funerals: http://newtown.patch...hook-elementary

(Wikipedia, posted under Creative Commons terms)

Sign the petition on the White House website. 155,000 signatures and counting:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/DYf3pH2d

Read this article: http://newtown.patch.com/articles/westboro-baptist-church-member-says-group-will-picket-sandy-hook-elementary

[JM15 386]

The hacker group Anonymous has been launching attacks against their websites, social media etc. They even posted all of the members personal information online.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Do they advocate violence? No. Has the church or any prominent member of the church been accused of violence? No.

Do they speak unfathomable hate? Yes. Do I fundamentally disagree with their speech? Yes. Do they have a right to their speech? Yes.

What will labeling this group as a legally recognized do? Absolutely nothing, they will still be able to protest funerals and spew their hate speech. Do I agree with it? No, but god damn it they have a right to speak it and you better believe that they can and will defend their right. We can condemn their speech in the strongest terms but we can not limit their speech no matter how extreme it is. So long as their speech does not violate any law, there is absolutely no choice but to accept the fact that they are entitled to their speech.

What you see as "push the 1st amendment to the extreme" I, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States, see as simply exercising their right to 1st amendment speech protection. If you don't like what they say, don't listen but they have not broken any laws and thus you have no right to limit their speech.

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

How about we line the borders of Newtown with FireFighters and EMS so they can' t get in to the town, you know go ahead make my day.

Edited December 18, 2012 by PCFD ENG58

[firebuff860 54]

The Patriot Guard will out number them.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

The Chief of Sandy Hook VFD has gone on the CT Fire forum and said that if they require assistance dealing with these people, they will put the word out at the appropriate time. You can be damned sure if that call comes in there will be quite a response from CTs first responders.

I'd also like to recognize the Connecticut State Police again. Since this tragedy, CSP has had Troopers detailed 24/7 as Liaisons to each individual family who has lost a loved one, helping protect them from the vultures in the media and helping out in any other way they can. These men and women are amazing, truly CT's finest.

Edited December 18, 2012 by SageVigiles

[SSweet88MonteSS 0]

Believe it or not, what makes this country so great is the fact that everybody's beliefs and public assemblies, as righteous or as disgusting as they may be, are Constiutionally protected.

While I think that Westboro has some of the most hideous, disgusting beliefs out there, the mere fact that the Constitution allows for their existence, means that you, me, and everyone else here has the same right. So why spend all the time, effort, and money on a court case (because you know that's what will happen) to have them branded as a hate group? Instead, we as a community should come together, using the same Constituionally-protected rights, and block their protest. Let's get all of our engines, ladders, ambulances, police cars, and everything else together, make a ring around the cemetaries and churches, and keep them out as a community. It will not be a court victory; rather, it will be a symbolic victory that will speak many more volumes than something that cannot be settled in the judiciary.

[ex-commish 490]

The very fact that this conversation is going on about this mail order church fuels thier very existent. My suggestion is to simply ignore them and don't reckognize this pack of haters. Any person of faith regardless of religion knows not one of us has the right to judge anyone so this church does not represent Christianity as it claims. To my understanding they tend to back down when they hear there may be people such as the Patriot Guard that will protect the funerals or at least they are held well away.

And I am also confident the emergency services family won't allow these mis-fits anywhere near Newton.

[x635 4,066]

Well, this is one way to handle them....except they make a lot of money suing everyone for violating their "civil rights", even if they weren't "violated".

Newtown foregoes anti-Westboro ordinance
John Pirro News-Times
Updated 10:01 pm, Monday, December 17, 2012

NEWTOWN -- Reacting to reports that Westboro Baptist Church is planning to protest at funerals for the victims of last week's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, town officials briefly considered -- but ultimately didn't act on -- a proposed emergency ordinance to keep members of the controversial church away from the services.

Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Newtown-foregoes-anti-Westboro-ordinance-4125512.php#ixzz2FPkMtgpH

Here is a Washington Post article on how to deal with them:
Westboro Baptist Church to picket Sandy Hook funerals: 4 ways to respond

[SageVigiles 1,194]

If the US Government can't even shut down Anonymous, I'd actually enjoy watching WBC try, it could only be hilariously embarrassing for them.

Never thought I'd agree with Anonymous... kind of an uncomfortable feeling.

[jtarby 3]

They thrive on the buzz and attention they generate from these events and we comply by giving it to them. I'd like to see every reference to them scrubbed from the internet, all the photos, links and blogs should just disappear. Not a single photo of them with their hateful signs should be posted anywhere. Frustrate the hell out of them until they make a mistake, do something outside the protection of the first amendment and then we shut them down in a heartbeat.

They're not idiots and they know their rights just like any other fringe group who wanders close the edge of the law. I hate to sound like the parent telling his kids to just ignore the bully and he'll go away, but in this case I'd like to give it a shot.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Passed on from the CT Fire website. I know we're not supposed to quote other sites but this has been sent out with the express intent of sharing, and is relevant to the conversation.

To all: The Hochsprung family has requested that no counter-protests be organized. They have a plan in place to deal with the WBC. See below from Facebook.......

On the "Please Read Description" of the "Love & Protect Sandy Hook" is read as follows: Current status of the Westboro Baptist Church:

We've been able to confirm that WCCC in Hartford is reporting a presence of Westboro Baptist Church members in the state of Connecticut. We cannot verify this information, only make their information known. WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THIS A CONFIRMED PRESENCE. At this time, we are unsure of a location, but with all eyes on Newtown for today's services, we ask that anyone in the Newtown area to please be on the lookout for any WBC presence. As always, we ask that you confirm sightings with some sort of visual evidence - photo, video, anything. Most people have mobile phones that can take pictures and post to Facebook, so feel free to be active with them. If you have something and you cannot share it to Facebook immediately, feel free to privately message me and I will give you my phone number and/or e-mail for you to send it to me. We're in constant communication with WCCC, and should they have any more information, we'll be sure to alert everyone.

PLEASE DO NOT ATTEND THE CALLING HOURS FOR PRINCIPAL DAWN HOCHSPRUNG, WEDNESDAY EVENING AT 3 PM IN WOODBURY. As many of you are aware, there are declared plans from the WBC to picket at the calling hours for SHES principal Dawn Hochsprung at the Woodbury Funeral Home of Munson-Lovetere, 2 School St. in Woodbury. We have received correspondence from someone personally connected to the Hochsprung family that has stated that while they appreciate our efforts, they have a plan of action in place and have asked we all stay home and focus our activity elsewhere.

[JM15 386]

Just a follow-up here is a link to the "press release" Anonymous posted. I don't agree with their politics normally and don't condone their illegal actions.

http://anonrelations.net/opwbc-507/

[INIT915 1,119]

Believe it or not, what makes this country so great is the fact that everybody's beliefs and public assemblies, as righteous or as disgusting as they may be, are Constiutionally protected. While I think that Westboro has some of the most hideous, disgusting beliefs out there, the mere fact that the Constitution allows for their existence, means that you, me, and everyone else here has the same right. So why spend all the time, effort, and money on a court case (because you know that's what will happen) to have them branded as a hate group? Instead, we as a community should come together, using the same Constituionally-protected rights, and block their protest. Let's get all of our engines, ladders, ambulances, police cars, and everything else together, make a ring around the cemetaries and churches, and keep them out as a community. It will not be a court victory; rather, it will be a symbolic victory that will speak many more volumes than something that cannot be settled in the judiciary.

How can you so strongly defend their right of Freedom of Speech, yet in the same post advocate physically preventing them from certain public places, thus violating thier Freedom of Assembly? Seems to me, it's either all or nothing.

[SSweet88MonteSS 0]

Some cemetaries are private and limit access to those who have a legitimate purpose for being on site, such as a funeral service and/or visiting the grave of a family member, friend, etc. Thus, you can prevent an unwanted assembly on private property.

In instances where the funeral may not be taking place on private property, It may not have been clear in my original post, but "keeping them out" was meant for the site of the actual funeral mass and burial. Thus, you can also come together as a community, and not through the judiciary, to prevent an unwanted assembly at the site of the funeral, in a manner similar to the way in which the Patriot Guard operates.

[AFS1970 504]

I do not agree with the WBC but I also have never agreed with the designation of any group as a hate group. I do not agree with the class warefare inherant in the hate crimes legislation. Guess what it is already illegal to assault and murder people, the hate crimes bill made some victims just a little bit more important than other victims, which goes against the constitutional concepts of equality that we hold dear in this country. Labeling a group, even as repulsive a group as WBC as a hate group will begin to erode the freedoms of religion that have been a major part of our contry since before it was a country. Anyone remember why the Pilgrims came here? We need to stringly guard against the lableing of any church as less of a church than any other church.

As for keeping them out of an area, well I would not do that unless I was asked to by the owner of the property, but I would see nothing wrong with having twice as many people line up in between WBC and whatever event they were trying to protest. I would never tell them not to speak, but I might try to speak louder than them or block their signs from the view of the families. I can tell you that the Patriot Riders are good, but they can notbe everywhere at once. There were many allied groups standing along side of them at one event in my town. I think the key is to respond to WBC's peaceful excercise of their rights with a peaceful excercise our our own rights, the key word being peaceful.

Lets not forget that there are religous groups that preach a much more hateful and violent message than WBC and we still allow them to go about their bussiness. Further discussion of that would probably get me kicked off of the internet, let alone this site, so I will stop there.

[SSweet88MonteSS 0]

...I would see nothing wrong with having twice as many people line up in between WBC and whatever event they were trying to protest. I would never tell them not to speak, but I might try to speak louder than them or block their signs from the view of the families.

Exactly.

[INIT915 1,119]

I do not agree with the WBC but I also have never agreed with the designation of any group as a hate group. I do not agree with the class warefare inherant in the hate crimes legislation. Guess what it is already illegal to assault and murder people, the hate crimes bill made some victims just a little bit more important than other victims, which goes against the constitutional concepts of equality that we hold dear in this country. Labeling a group, even as repulsive a group as WBC as a hate group will begin to erode the freedoms of religion that have been a major part of our contry since before it was a country.

I'm not sure how hate crimes legislation has anything to do with class warfare.

But, let's imagine this. Two men are walking down the street, one white and one black. One of the men, let's say the white man, is attacked and assaulted for no other reason then he is white in a black neighborhood. If not for that single trait, he would have been allowed to go about his business. Now, the perpetrators are the one who choose the victim and held him out for special treatment. Why should the law not have a mechanism to adjudicate that crime with a special level of punishment? The victim wasn't afforded the Constitutional protection of equal treatment under the laws that you hold so dear, but the attacker should? How come, all else being equal, the victim's rights are subservient to the attacker's, again remember, a crime which would never have occurred except the the victim was singled out and attacked for being a member of a protected class.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Any emergency services personnel interested in helping Newtown are asked to email wallfornewtown@gmail.com. This was passed along to me by the Chief of Newtown Hook and Ladder Company. It sounds like this is the plan the family is using to protect against WBC.

[JM15 386]

Any emergency services personnel interested in helping Newtown are asked to email wallfornewtown@gmail.com. This was passed along to me by the Chief of Newtown Hook and Ladder Company. It sounds like this is the plan the family is using to protect against WBC.

Do you know what they need or when?

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Email them, they will put you on a list and let you know what/when they need resources.

[AFS1970 504]

I'm not sure how hate crimes legislation has anything to do with class warfare.

But, let's imagine this. Two men are walking down the street, one white and one black. One of the men, let's say the white man, is attacked and assaulted for no other reason then he is white in a black neighborhood. If not for that single trait, he would have been allowed to go about his business. Now, the perpetrators are the one who choose the victim and held him out for special treatment. Why should the law not have a mechanism to adjudicate that crime with a special level of punishment? The victim wasn't afforded the Constitutional protection of equal treatment under the laws that you hold so dear, but the attacker should? How come, all else being equal, the victim's rights are subservient to the attacker's, again remember, a crime which would never have occurred except the the victim was singled out and attacked for being a member of a protected class.

Well in that scenario, what if both men are attacked? What makes the white victim more of a victim than the black victim? That is exactly where the class warfare comes into it, because two victims are not treated the same way. The very notion of a protected class is abhorrent to a classless society. I discovered once in a workplace case that hostility is not legally hostile unless you are in one of those protected classes, so the degrees of equality are very real.

I am not saying that the victims rights are subservient to the perpetrator. However since the attack was already against the law, there are already charges to bring. The fact that a victim is targeted for any reason by a criminal has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law, as the criminal does not speak for the law. Hate crimes legislation makes certain victims more equal under the law, which is just a little too much like Animal Farm for me.

[x635 4,066]

You know it's bad when even the KKK is against them!!!

[gss131 212]

sent an e-mail to wallfornewtown@gmail.com ,they are looking for groups of 15 for thurs. a.m.

[INIT915 1,119]

Well in that scenario, what if both men are attacked? What makes the white victim more of a victim than the black victim? That is exactly where the class warfare comes into it, because two victims are not treated the same way. The very notion of a protected class is abhorrent to a classless society. I discovered once in a workplace case that hostility is not legally hostile unless you are in one of those protected classes, so the degrees of equality are very real.

I am not saying that the victims rights are subservient to the perpetrator. However since the attack was already against the law, there are already charges to bring. The fact that a victim is targeted for any reason by a criminal has nothing to do with equal treatment under the law, as the criminal does not speak for the law. Hate crimes legislation makes certain victims more equal under the law, which is just a little too much like Animal Farm for me.

I still fail to see your class warfare argument. But, nonetheless, I respectfully disagree with your hate-crimes argument. And seeing how the issue has been decided by a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court, it is the law of the land, which I support.

[PEMO3 523]

I have just one question for those that are supporting this group as a "right to free speech". Before you make your statement think, put yourself in the place of these families, parent for the most part of 6 year olds. Would you still support their free speech if it was your loved ones funeral that was being protested? A child that was innocently gunned down or teacher protecting a child. How would you feel if you were meet by people saying "God Hates America" and spewing hateful words while you were grieving and trying to spend your last moments with your child or loved one. Is this the memory you would want or does this just add "icing to the cake" of pain that these families are already feeling. It is easy to quote scripture, the Constitution and law but one needs to step back and think before speaking and ponder what if this were me. What would I do? What would I want done? I don't think one person here will say they want the last memories of their loved ones funeral service to be marred with controversy. Just my opinion.

[peterose313 345]

I've heard that a bunch of these members are pretty good lawyers and thrive on confrontation and violence. When they're not busy protesting funerals and hating on homosexuals, they're in court winning a good chunk of the lawsuits put forth against them. They're smart people, they'll find loopholes to reverse the "hate group" tag if that happens.

[AFS1970 504]

I still fail to see your class warfare argument. But, nonetheless, I respectfully disagree with your hate-crimes argument. And seeing how the issue has been decided by a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court, it is the law of the land, which I support.

Yes it is the law of the land and I do respect it, although I still disagree with it. In my opinion it was a piece of feel good legislation that played on emotional response of the community and was never fully thought out. We have seen certain political issues crop up after this recent tragedy in much the same manner.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Nazis could march in Skokie, although after the case they never actually held the march there. That was a very controversial decision at it's time, and has probably had the greatest impact on what WBC does and where they do it.

I have just one question for those that are supporting this group as a "right to free speech". Before you make your statement think, put yourself in the place of these families, parent for the most part of 6 year olds. Would you still support their free speech if it was your loved ones funeral that was being protested? A child that was innocently gunned down or teacher protecting a child. How would you feel if you were meet by people saying "God Hates America" and spewing hateful words while you were grieving and trying to spend your last moments with your child or loved one. Is this the memory you would want or does this just add "icing to the cake" of pain that these families are already feeling. It is easy to quote scripture, the Constitution and law but one needs to step back and think before speaking and ponder what if this were me. What would I do? What would I want done? I don't think one person here will say they want the last memories of their loved ones funeral service to be marred with controversy. Just my opinion.

One of the most brilliant things our founding fathers did was craft a document that encompasses things that they probably could never have envisioned. WBC falls into this area. I find what they do at funerals disgusting, and I especially find the way they have expanded their protests from a war protest to now protesting any funeral that may bring them some media coverage, to be morally void. I am pretty certain this site will filter out what I would like to call them for that. I do not believe that God hates America, I do not believe that what they do is kind to the families, or sensitive to the community, but it is constitutionally protected. If it were me and I was in the sad position you describe, I would hope that I could focus instead on the outpouring of support that is evident from all the groups other than WBC that will be there.

We have posted at work a copy of the Connecticut State Statute the prohibits protesting at funerals. This law sets distance limits and restricts certain noise levels. In effect it allows the protests but does it's best to shield the families from any further distress. I remember when this law was being debated, it was before WBC had ever come to CT, but they had been in the news for their protests in other states. However the laws carefully avoids mentioning any specific group or even any specific kind of protest.

[INIT915 1,119]

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Nazis could march in Skokie, although after the case they never actually held the march there. That was a very controversial decision at it's time, and has probably had the greatest impact on what WBC does and where they do it.

A decision which you no doubt support, am I right?

One of the most brilliant things our founding fathers did was craft a document that encompasses things that they probably could never have envisioned. WBC falls into this area. I find what they do at funerals disgusting, and I especially find the way they have expanded their protests from a war protest to now protesting any funeral that may bring them some media coverage, to be morally void. I am pretty certain this site will filter out what I would like to call them for that. I do not believe that God hates America, I do not believe that what they do is kind to the families, or sensitive to the community, but it is constitutionally protected. If it were me and I was in the sad position you describe, I would hope that I could focus instead on the outpouring of support that is evident from all the groups other than WBC that will be there.

Our founding fathers were not infallible, as many like to believe. I mean, as one example, for nearly a century we have the "three-fifths compromise." Do you argue that this was brilliant solely because the "founding fathers" came up with? If you do, I don't share your sentiments.

[AFS1970 504]

I am neither a Nazi nor a slave owner.

The ruling in the Skokie affair was just used as an example of how even groups that most people find hateful do in fact have constitutional rights. While I do think the SCOTUS ruled correctly in that matter, I do not like the way in which that case was brought about. It was theater for its own sake on the part of the NSPA. I would have preferred that they had pushed their original plan, which I think had equal constitutional issues (although I am certainly no legal expert) but they chose to go for the route that would alarm and inflame the most people and bring them the media coverage. I think this is terrible and even can dilute whatever message you are trying to send out.

Think about WBC, they started by protesting soldier's funerals because they thought the war was unjust and they thought that the deaths were divine retribution for decisions our government had made. Now I don't agree with it, but I can see how they equate soldiers with the government. However if anyone can tell me what the kids killed in Sandy Hook had to do with various laws and court rulings that WBC disagrees with I would love to hear it, because it makes no sense to me. At this point they are just going anywhere they can get in front of a camera and as a result have muddied whatever their original stand was.

As for the 3/5's compromise, I am a little more OK with that one because I understand what it protected against. It was not about saying that blacks were less than whites, as some suggest. First we have to understand that slavery was a hotly debated topic at the founding of our country. The northern states were basically against it and the southern states were basically for it, although they were even in that pre-industrial age in a slightly different economic environment. However after the southern states won on the slavery issue, they wanted their slaves to count as full citizens, thus giving the south a larger population and ensuring their control of the House of Representatives. The delegates from the northern states did not want to count the non voting slaves at all, arguing that if they south insisted on slaves being property why should they count any more than cattle or horses. Counting slaves as population would have encouraged importing more slaves as a political control measure. The compromise actually came in not in the fraction but how the fraction was applied. Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for representation hurt the south, but counting them that way for taxation hurt the north. Some say it actually protected the integrity of the census in that it prevented artificially increasing population just before an official count.