Fred Phelps to NOT protest the VTech killings, with condition...

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I gather that it's a freedom of speech issue. I know that where I live, there are categories of speech that are not constitutionally protected, and "hate speech" is among these categories.

I'm not sure if there is an equivalent exception to freedom of speech provisions in the USA, and if the bile Phelps spouts would be captured by such an exception.

Presumably church/cemetary grounds are private property and any unwanted protesters could be expelled. But I gather that protesting outside on public property (i.e. the sidewalk or street) is pretty much unstoppable.

(Unless you're protesting the government, of course. :rolleyes: )

No, there is no such provision in the USA. I think it's probably one of the few things on which American right- and left-wingers would agree - both would reject the idea that some bureaucrat would get to define what "hate" speech is. It doesn't take long for it to morph into "annoying" speech, and from there to "inconvenient" speech, and on down to just about any speech at all. No, it doesn't take long.

You can protest the government in the US, but you can't always protest it just anywhere you please. There are decent points to be made on both sides of that particular question.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
yer right, that part of the equation is extortion. however, protesting funerals is, in my opinion, a form of terrorism.

Well, no.

This is labeling - a common tactic which poisons American political discourse. Take a problem which sits in a sort of gray area. Define it as being the same as some other problem which does not sit in a gray area - an area which everyone agrees about without having to devote any thought to it. Voila, the gray area problem which demands thought and invites discussion has been reduced to a simple black-and-white problem with an obvious answer, and anyone who doesn't see it that way must be a nutbag.

Reduce questions about abortion policy, intrinsically murky and difficult, to questions about women's rights, about which there aren't nearly as many basic difficulties. Problem solved!

Global warming, a horribly difficult scientific problem, isn't difficult at all if we can insist that it's really just a denial problem. Hey, we don't need to know any science anymore, the answer is all in pop psychology! Great!

In this case, a free speech issue can be converted to one of terrorism simply by calling it that. Nobody approves of terrorism (although not everybody is willing to fight it). Then instantly, it's a mystery why the law isn't all over Fred, him being a terrorist and all.

The problem is, Fred isn't a terrorist. We can call a cat a dog, but it still looks like a cat, meows like a cat, coughs up hairballs like a cat, even if we have to buy a dog license for it. Fred is a shit who has exactly the same civil rights re speech as you or I do. But until he starts bombing funerals, he's simply not a terrorist.

The English language is a tool for communication. It can also be abused as a tool for obfuscation. The world has enough confused people around already without trying to confuse them further.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Well, no.

This is labeling - a common tactic which poisons American political discourse. Take a problem which sits in a sort of gray area. Define it as being the same as some other problem which does not sit in a gray area - an area which everyone agrees about without having to devote any thought to it. Voila, the gray area problem which demands thought and invites discussion has been reduced to a simple black-and-white problem with an obvious answer, and anyone who doesn't see it that way must be a nutbag.

Reduce questions about abortion policy, intrinsically murky and difficult, to questions about women's rights, about which there aren't nearly as many basic difficulties. Problem solved!

Global warming, a horribly difficult scientific problem, isn't difficult at all if we can insist that it's really just a denial problem. Hey, we don't need to know any science anymore, the answer is all in pop psychology! Great!

In this case, a free speech issue can be converted to one of terrorism simply by calling it that. Nobody approves of terrorism (although not everybody is willing to fight it). Then instantly, it's a mystery why the law isn't all over Fred, him being a terrorist and all.

The problem is, Fred isn't a terrorist. We can call a cat a dog, but it still looks like a cat, meows like a cat, coughs up hairballs like a cat, even if we have to buy a dog license for it. Fred is a shit who has exactly the same civil rights re speech as you or I do. But until he starts bombing funerals, he's simply not a terrorist.

The English language is a tool for communication. It can also be abused as a tool for obfuscation. The world has enough confused people around already without trying to confuse them further.

Well if Cho (or whatever the fuck his name was) was not institutionalized for the 'hateful' things he said and society got a mass murder for its carelessness, then maybe to be on the safe side we should institutionalize Phelp's and his clan?
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
I disagree with
...
anyone and neither has Paris. They don't deserve public attention, but this maniac certainly does -- for our own good.

The thing is society doesn't learn anything by showing his manifesto, we all basically know he was an insane person, but as you tacitly seem to agree other psychotic people would be encouraged by being able to visualize impending infamy and enjoy the fantasy in the here and now.

MSNBC are worse than post whores for 'educating' us.:cool:
 

Nitrofiend

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
892
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
There is not a court in the world that would see this as extortion. He's made the offer public, and if he doesn't get what he wants from the radio station, no one is going to say he's extorting them for a wrongdoing of their own. No such wrongdoing has been committed (that we know of).

This man is simply a terrorist. He salts, burns, and pisses on open wounds. He is threatening to do that if his demands are met. Violence is not the only form of terror there is. He is planning to just plain vanilla terrorize these people. He is a terrorist.

Extortion does not apply as far as we know. He has no authority to extort the radio station. Though he probably knows the Radio will cave to his demands because he's a chicken shit and even he knows he will not survive if he goes to Virginia.
 

Nitrofiend

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
892
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The thing is society doesn't learn anything by showing his manifesto, we all basically know he was an insane person, but as you tacitly seem to agree other psychotic people would be encouraged by being able to visualize impending infamy and enjoy the fantasy in the here and now.

MSNBC are worse than post whores for 'educating' us.:cool:

Wrong. I do not agree that showing his manifesto will exacerbate more psychotic people. If they're that psychotic to begin with, it's only a matter of time before they conduct their own massacres.

I do not believe that Phelps should be institutionalized, because he is following the laws for the most part and knows better than to take the word of "The Lord" into his own hands. Unless he happens to snap.

At any rate, showing Seung-Ho's manifesto is beneficial because it proves that he was not a person deserving of our sympathy and thus his "plight" cannot be successfully spun as such. On the news it's always the "ignored and depressed teen" boo-hoo. Now there's no ground towards that. I feel awful for his parents, but Seung-Ho can rot as far as I'm concerned. He was a hateful maggot in life, and now he's among friends.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Really? So psychopathic people who are already obsessed with the concepts of violence aren't any more prone to committing these acts than people who are not psychotic and are not obsessed with violence?

I really don't know what point you are trying to make here.

I say that not all psychotic people eventually act on their impulses. And maybe some who would never end up killing people decide to go ahead with it because adding possible notoriety to their fantasy is the element that finally gets them to act. What's so hard to understand about that?
 

Nitrofiend

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
892
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I really don't know what point you are trying to make here.

I say that not all psychotic people eventually act on their impulses. And maybe some who would never end up killing people decide to go ahead with it because adding possible notoriety to their fantasy is the element that finally gets them to act. What's so hard to understand about that?

It's difficult to understand because it's illogical. Violence is so ingrained in the various media that it's practically become a medium itself. Ergo, if someone is psychopathic and obsessed with violence, I see no reason why they wouldn't be inspired to act through some other influence (maybe voices in their heads, who knows).

Classifying the manifesto doesn't make a pinprick in the abundance of countless other examples of violence. Why not cut out the entire breakfast scene in Pulp Fiction? That was one of the most violent things I had ever seen in my life, and I had witnessed a person's gruesome death years before watching it.

We have a right to look inside the eyes of this demented person so we can understand his motive, and judge him thusly. Myself and I'm sure many others are quite interested in why he did what he did.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
It's difficult to understand because it's illogical. Violence is so ingrained in the various media that it's practically become a medium itself. Ergo, if someone is psychopathic and obsessed with violence, I see no reason why they wouldn't be inspired to act through some other influence (maybe voices in their heads, who knows).

Classifying the manifesto doesn't make a pinprick in the abundance of countless other examples of violence. Why not cut out the entire breakfast scene in Pulp Fiction? That was one of the most violent things I had ever seen in my life, and I had witnessed a person's gruesome death years before watching it.

We have a right to look inside the eyes of this demented person so we can understand his motive, and judge him thusly. Myself and I'm sure many others are quite interested in why he did what he did.

So your prurient interest so that you can judge him trumps the idea that real life validation (and not fantastic ones like those found in movies) shouldn't be offered as a reward to insane people.

Earlier you stated he was talentless and that we should judge him poorly for that. What if he was talented? Could he have been talented and done what he had? Would have he had to?
 

davidjh7

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
2,607
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
283
Location
seattle
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Unfortunately, in this case, there is no such thing as bad publicity. There is still a majority of people in this country that feel that homosexuality is evil, and should be stopped, whatever way works. They just speak the words less publicly than they used to, and are more discret in the violence they propogate. He gives a voice to the silent majority, unfortunately, so confronting him outright only gives him a martryr status. THis is one of those times when the perpetrator needs to be taken out quietly, with no fanfare, and no connection to the real reason. An arranged major coronary. He travels a great deal, eats out a lot, I am guessing. Perfect opportunity to get anasty case of botulism....terible tragedy, loss to the "christian" world, etc.....and quickly forgotten as soon as Brittinay has her next drunken escade. There are ways--they just aren't very pretty ways....All I can say, is for his sake, and the sake of the followers around him, I hope he never chooses to protest at my friends or families funerals......not that I would do anything, of course. I am a pascifist, I believe in peaceful cooexistence.....:147:
 

Nitrofiend

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Posts
892
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
So your prurient interest so that you can judge him trumps the idea that real life validation (and not fantastic ones like those found in movies) shouldn't be offered as a reward to insane people.

Earlier you stated he was talentless and that we should judge him poorly for that. What if he was talented? Could he have been talented and done what he had? Would have he had to?

Yes, he could have been talented and done what he had done. But he wasn't. If you were paying attention early after the tragedy, you would have noticed the media forces of sympathy already amassing towards the deceased man with the tortured soul.

By releasing:

A) his plays
B) his manifesto

, they immediately nipped that one in the bud. There is no sympathy to be felt towards this man. He showed no mercy to his victims, and he gave nothing beneficial to society but his self-case study. And thankfully so.

He was a lone nut, period. He could have had a more compelling tale, and while that would not have absolved him by a loooooong shot, it would have presented him as a man with a seemingly redemptive quality and then, only then would he perhaps have served as a bad example to disenchanted and depressed youth (with slightly more mental capacity). He was a madman, and will only serve to influence other equally-disturbed individuals. End of story.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Yes, he could have been talented and done what he had done. But he wasn't. If you were paying attention early after the tragedy, you would have noticed the media forces of sympathy already amassing towards the deceased man with the tortured soul.

By releasing:

A) his plays
B) his manifesto

, they immediately nipped that one in the bud. There is no sympathy to be felt towards this man. He showed no mercy to his victims, and he gave nothing beneficial to society but his self-case study. And thankfully so.

He was a lone nut, period. He could have had a more compelling tale, and while that would not have absolved him by a loooooong shot, it would have presented him as a man with a seemingly redemptive quality and then, only then would he perhaps have served as a bad example to disenchanted and depressed youth (with slightly more mental capacity). He was a madman, and will only serve to influence other equally-disturbed individuals. End of story.

Actually you interpreted it the reverse to what I perceived.

He was unknown at first. Then acquaintances painted him in a light of a disturbing individual who was inscrutable. When the plays and manifesto were shown it just confirmed the obvious from the continuing public testimony, that he was insane.

Only later was there a perceived sense of a portrayal that something wrong had been done to this diagnosed autistic individual (i.e. bullying, taunting).