They still exist because of free speech. Unlike some other countries (I know Canada for instance doesn't allow it, under legal bans on "hate speech" and similar things, and I'm pretty sure they've been banned in a few other countries) the US does not censor (most) activity or speech, no matter how vile; so nothing about the things they have to say is illegal*. Unpopular, highly disliked, and generally disdained by most everyone (heck, even the freakin' KKK hates Westboro - that takes talent), but still (barely) legal.
And Westboro is very, very careful to dance along the edge of the line of provocation and incitement without crossing it. They make a lot of their money by, as mentioned upthread, getting their opposition to make the first move then having very, very good lawyers.
Granted, that just further highlights how screwed up our judicial systems are, but there you go.
*=Bizarre as it sounds, there's one good thing to come out of WBC's nonsense. So long as they remain uncensored and allowed to exist, it shows that the basic premise of free speech is, at least on some level, still alive in this country. As soon as the government starts trying to block what they have to say, my worry is that it'll only be a matter of time until that censorship is allowed to spread to anything the party-in-power-at-the-time disagrees with.
Thanks Orthos and BNW for the responses. Freedom of speech is of course a good thing (sometimes I heard things from old people about the Franco dictatorship that seem like a nightmare now) but can produce something like that. One case from here on Spain not many years ago was the political support to terrorist group of ETA. Was legit something like that? Of course, the two cases are really different.
As always, I really like the international nature of forums; that let you see how things are on other countries.
Thanks Orthos and BNW for the responses. Freedom of speech is of course a good thing (sometimes I heard things from old people about the Franco dictatorship that seem like a nightmare now) but can produce something like that. One case from here on Spain not many years ago was the political support to terrorist group of ETA. Was legit something like that? Of course, the two cases are really different.
Traditionally, political support of terrorist groups was legal, but support of criminal activity -- anything that could get you charged as an accessory or an accomplice to a specific act -- was not.
This changed with the passage of the PATRIOT Act in the USA; "providing material support to terrorism" is now itself a crime. This names four specific types of support, "training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel," which still leaves pure political support PROBABLY legal. Under the old law, for example, I could design a web site for ETA or teach a first aid class at ETA headquarters. I couldn't do that now. But I could PROBABLY circulate a petition in favor of an ETA-sponsored referendum. (And, of course, you can replace ETA with any other group designated as "terrorist.")
Yeah, the Patriot Act is its own kettle of bad fish.
Plain honest question from someone outside USA. I have never heard of that church outside this forums and find really sick that people as they as presented here. So, the question is... how that "church" still exists? Their activities seem really amoral and find strange they are still legal? They really seem a dangerous sect.
Either way, Tirisfal, you have all my support for what you want to do. Little more I can do, sorry.
The WBC skirts the line in the US of being classified as a hate group. If/when they are, many of their legal protections go away. Until it happens, they abuse the legal right to protest by shouting homophobic messages at inappropriate places.
|
Thanks Orthos and BNW for the responses. Freedom of speech is of course a good thing (sometimes I heard things from old people about the Franco dictatorship that seem like a nightmare now) but can produce something like that. One case from here on Spain not many years ago was the political support to terrorist group of ETA. Was legit something like that? Of course, the two cases are really different.Traditionally, political support of terrorist groups was legal, but support of criminal activity -- anything that could get you charged as an accessory or an accomplice to a specific act -- was not.
This changed with the passage of the PATRIOT Act in the USA; "providing material support to terrorism" is now itself a crime. This names four specific types of support, "training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel," which still leaves pure political support PROBABLY legal. Under the old law, for example, I could design a web site for ETA or teach a first aid class at ETA headquarters. I couldn't do that now. But I could PROBABLY circulate a petition in favor of an ETA-sponsored referendum. (And, of course, you can replace ETA with any other group designated as "terrorist.")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The WBC skirts the line in the US of being classified as a hate group. If/when they are, many of their legal protections go away. Until it happens, they abuse the legal right to protest by shouting homophobic messages at inappropriate places.
I didn't think that government classification as a hate group officially existed, much less had any actual ramifications. The two biggies for labeling hate groups are the southern poverty law center and the antidefimation league, both non governmental organizations.
So what was the results of this?
Look up westboro and zombie counterprotest...lol they came to washington and a whole bunch of soldiers and civilians dressed up as zombies to annoy them. :)
Biggest thing they do is try to get people to hit them (wbc) or attack them so they can sue them for more money.