Westboro Baptist Church sued

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/26funeral.html?ref=us

This is the "church" responsible for the protests at soldiers' funerals who carry the "God Hates F**s" signs"

How do you fell about the free speech argument here?

Free speech should have limits. They are emotionally disturbing people, let them talk about this stuff in their houses.chrisrooR

These people give religion a bad name :(Bill900

yeah they really make christians look bad

yeah they really make christians look bad

LS07

You know, in my life I have seen a lot of people that call themselves Christian, and very, very few whose typical behavior would convince me of it.

Wow! Some of those posts sound despotic. While I don't agree with their message, I would not advocate limiting their right to say it. The first was created to protect UNpopular speech, not the crap that everyone agrees on.

"While I don't agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-Voltaire.

[QUOTE="LS07"]

yeah they really make christians look bad

SpaceMoose

You know, in my life I have seen a lot of people that call themselves Christian, and very, very few whose typical behavior would convince me of it.

then you must be hanging around the wrong christians, but yes there are a lot of fake christians out there

Wow! Some of those posts sound despotic. While I don't agree with their message, I would not advocate limiting their right to say it. The first was created to protect UNpopular speech, not the crap that everyone agrees on.

"While I don't agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-Voltaire.

Frattracide

They weren't tossed in a federal jail cell for what they said. They made libelous, hateful and distressing statements in the vicinity of private property. Usually I'm against anyone suing and citing "emotional distress" as a reason, but these were made in a highly emotional setting and I feel they had a right to sue.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

Wow! Some of those posts sound despotic. While I don't agree with their message, I would not advocate limiting their right to say it. The first was created to protect UNpopular speech, not the crap that everyone agrees on.

"While I don't agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-Voltaire.

bigdcstile

They weren't tossed in a federal jail cell for what they said. They made libelous, hateful and distressing statements in the vicinity of private property. Usually I'm against anyone suing and citing "emotional distress" as a reason, but these were made in a highly emotional setting and I feel they had a right to sue.

Right, but the posts here were advocating incarceration and the limiting of free speech. Which was the point of my post.

[QUOTE="bigdcstile"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

Wow! Some of those posts sound despotic. While I don't agree with their message, I would not advocate limiting their right to say it. The first was created to protect UNpopular speech, not the crap that everyone agrees on.

"While I don't agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-Voltaire.

Frattracide

They weren't tossed in a federal jail cell for what they said. They made libelous, hateful and distressing statements in the vicinity of private property. Usually I'm against anyone suing and citing "emotional distress" as a reason, but these were made in a highly emotional setting and I feel they had a right to sue.

Right, but the posts here were advocating incarceration and the limiting of free speech. Which was the point of my post.

My bad. Carry on, then. :P