Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shook]

I hope the police decides to put the Constitution aside and shut them down. >.>

Probably shouldn't, really.

Yes, it's highly unpleasant. But no, there shouldn't be different standards for what you do and don't like.

It's not so much my personal dislike of it as it's the fact that it's extremely disrespectful. It'd be like me barging in on a random funeral and loudly calling it bullshit because the dead person doesn't care anyways, and then proceeding to call the deceased a fool for dying because they swore to the wrong kind of coffee creamer (and by the way i have the right one here with me come taste it's pretty great). I don't know about you, but i wouldn't want such an excessive level of disrespect to be legal. It should at least count as a form of harassment, which IS a criminal offense in most places.

[Frumple]

Harassment generally requires both a pattern and a specific target, Iirc; you can't really hit someone with it over generic or group condemnation, or protests. The WBC is pretty careful about making sure they don't really do either. As noted, they've repeatedly won lawsuits over attempts to shut them up. They know what they're doing, and are very meticulous about not crossing legal lines. One way or another, what they're doing is mostly constitutionally protected speech. Disrespect and reprehensible statements (so long as they're not explicitly inciting violence or somethin', and perhaps unfortunately such comments directed to gods don't count) are not illegal.

... personally, I actually would prefer things that way, for all that I would not be exactly saddened if folks like the WBC suddenly became physically incapable of communication. The disrespect of today may not be the disrespect of tomorrow, and I'd rather not it end up where something like speaking Spanish or something (passing by the funeral of someone murdered by a Spanish speaker, perhaps) could be seen as criminal disrespect.

[IcyTea31]

I think the 'problem' (which isn't a problem) is that churches are public property; nobody needs an invitation to attend, say, a stranger's funeral. On private property, one could just threaten to press charges on trespassing and move the protest away from the event. I'm definitely not saying that churches should be made private, though; that's a slippery slope to a cult.

For actual solutions, I'd say the counter-protests are very effective. The WBC is a vocal minority, so a larger group could easily overshadow them. Carp, make the counter-protest out of tolerant Christians and there's not much they can do without making themselves seem even crazier.

[Cthulhu]

I hope the police decides to put the Constitution aside and shut them down. >.>

Probably shouldn't, really.

Yes, it's highly unpleasant. But no, there shouldn't be different standards for what you do and don't like.

It's not so much my personal dislike of it as it's the fact that it's extremely disrespectful. It'd be like me barging in on a random funeral and loudly calling it bullshit because the dead person doesn't care anyways, and then proceeding to call the deceased a fool for dying because they swore to the wrong kind of coffee creamer (and by the way i have the right one here with me come taste it's pretty great). I don't know about you, but i wouldn't want such an excessive level of disrespect to be legal. It should at least count as a form of harassment, which IS a criminal offense in most places.

Well that's why you're not the one who makes these calls.   If you get the government to deny free speech for people you don't like, don't be surprised when they use the new authority you gave them to deny it for somebody you do like.

[BlackHeartKabal]

The simple solution is to have the police deal with the public disturbance of picketing a funeral?

[Cthulhu]

Why?  If standing and yelling things you disagree with is a public disturbance that needs to be broken up we should probably ban all protests.

[Shook]

Well that's why you're not the one who makes these calls.   If you get the government to deny free speech for people you don't like, don't be surprised when they use the new authority you gave them to deny it for somebody you do like.

I know. I am all too aware of how things would inevitably turn out if there's ANY law passed on the censorship of free speech, because power hungry fools are always looking for ways to stay seated and silence the opposition, and oops now it's the Glorious Dictatorship of America all because some dicktits decided to take a law meant to keep Giant Asshole Organizations^TM in check and twist it to silence everyone who opposed them. That would sure as hell be a lot worse than having nutters like WBC around. The fact that that would happen is also why i keep a healthy distance to politics in general.

[martinuzz]

I wonder though, if it wasn't WBC saying "God hates fags, etc etc", but a muslim organistation saying "Allah hates fags etc etc" and announcing a protest at the funerals, if the police would also say "we can't do anything high court constitution yadda yadda". I think they'd be arrested, charged with glorifying terrorism ("god sent the killer"), and sent to Guantanoma Bay 2.0 wherever that might be.

I suggest, to protect equal rights, that the American government (or at least the Orlando chief of police) gets it's head out of it's ass and does the same with these WBC terrorist glorifyers.

... personally, I actually would prefer things that way, for all that I would not be exactly saddened if folks like the WBC suddenly became physically incapable of communication.

Cutting out their tongue eh? How medieval of you.

On the topic of WBC, Louis Theroux made a documentary about them for the BBC a while ago.
You can watch it here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzud90_the-most-hated-family-in-america_shortfilms

[Yoink]

I wonder though, if it wasn't WBC saying "God hates fags, etc etc", but a muslim organistation saying "Allah hates fags etc etc" and announcing a protest at the funerals, if the police would also say "we can't do anything high court constitution yadda yadda". I think they'd be arrested, charged with glorifying terrorism ("god sent the killer"), and sent to Guantanoma Bay 2.0 wherever that might be.

Huh, that's an interesting thought.

I think here in Australia, where the vocal majority trip over themselves vehemently defending both Islam and homosexuality wherever they happen to be mentioned with anything less than adulation, it would be quite interesting indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if such an occurrence caused the (largely empty) head of every rabid SJW between here and Darwin to spontaneously explode.    

[Helgoland]

Well, it made me sad yesterday, but still: A friend told me yesterday that she got sexually abused. At age twelve. By her sister.

What the fuck is wrong with people? I refuse to believe that shit like that is just a product of human nature.

Sorry for re-posting, but I think I need some input here. It's the first time I've heard of stuff like this happening to one of my aquaintances, and I don't quite know how to work with that piece of info... Not that it's an acute matter in any way - it was ages ago, and I'm like the fourth person she told this. According to her, it gets easier with each time: That's a good sign, no?

[TheBiggerFish]

I'm not a psychologist or anything, but I think it is a good thing that she's able to talk about it.

[BlackHeartKabal]

I'm simply scared to help, because it's such a... delicate situation that if I said the wrong thing I might make things worse. My support is wherever it's needed, though.

[Frumple]

Cutting out their tongue eh? How medieval of you.

No, no, nothing like. They'd still be able to write and pantomime and whatnot, after all. Just... say something like a geas became an actual thing, and they got hit with one preventing communication. Most people, even some of which have pretty odious views to me, I'd be bothered by it to some degree. WBC, not so much.

And yeah Helg, being able to talk about something like that, and talking about it more, generally is a good sign and a healthy thing. Probably not always, but usually. Other than that, my best advice would... probably be to do some research? It's been years since I last time I brushed up on generally recommended best practices for interacting with abuse victims, but I'm pretty sure there's quite a lot of material available; just in general, and also specifically from abuse support groups and counseling organizations and whatnot. Which... yeah. Possibly consider asking a psychologist (particularly if there's one you know and trust), or an abuse victim support group or somethin'.* They often accept some kind of request for anonymity, particularly for things from long past or that the victim has no intent of seeking legal redress for.

In the meantime, probably don't let it effect you too terribly much, particularly if it's no longer traumatic to the victim. I am pretty aware that a lot of abuse victims (sexual or otherwise) are not exactly appreciative of people significantly changing their behavior after learning about it; regardless of what happened in the past, they're still the same person, etc., etc. Maybe a thanks for the sign of trust, offer of support or whatnot if and how they want it, that sort of thing, but otherwise just kinda' be the friend you've previously been. That'll most likely help more than just about anything you can do, really.

*Maybe even ask your friend if they've been in communication with something like that, and ask 'em if it'd be alright if you talk with who/what ever that happens to be, too. Could be a good idea regardless just to have a second person aware of whatever they're dealing with that way. Can help make sure they're not being taken advantage of or somethin'. Doesn't sound like it's likely they are if there's any being consulted, from what little you've said, but it's always a possibility.

[Helgoland]

otherwise just kinda' be the friend you've previously been. That'll most likely help more than just about anything you can do, really.

Pretty much what I was planning on doing - thanks for the confirmation I guess I just needed to hear a couple voices on this one.

[Frumple]

Yeah... so long as there's not actual/no longer acute trauma (i.e. PTSD flashbacks, etc.) going on, there's probably not much (more) in the way of landmines or whatev' (than there already was), so however you were treating them previously is probably pretty okay. Can't really recall much at the moment, and most of what I do remember was more directed at non-sexual abuse victims (More than one family member ) than otherwise, but yeah.

More than that, definitely contact someone(s) that is (/are) more directly involved with counseling/support/etc., along (and/or in conjunction; if they want someone to go with to a support group meeting or shrink visit or somethin', you could maybe do that, ferex, if your relationship is close enough it'd be appropriate to offer) with your friend, and probably try to let said friend direct any substantial changes they want to see in y'all's friendship. If they've made it this far (and it sounds like it's been at least a decade, maybe two or more), they're probably no longer particularly delicate on the subject or having much trouble knowing what they need to do for themselves. So... let 'em do that, unless there's signs something's going particularly bad on that front.