Jump to content

» «

Should Fred Phelps be censored?

4 replies to this topic
General Goose
  • General Goose

    Because Jeb Bush is all in my house with disease.

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2009


Posted 17 March 2011 - 11:22 PM

For those of who for whom that name bears no significance for, Fred Phelps is the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church. Determined that God hates everyone and everything because of humanity's current tolerance for homosexuality and other perceived sins, they frequently appear at protests at everything from political rallies to military funerals carrying signs like "God hates fags". They are without question a bunch of brutal, extremist, vicious arseholes who exploit the worst tragedies for their own gain and have no respect for people's rights to privacy.

The law has been quite harsh on them lately. Already, a bill passed the US Congress by overwhelming majorities made it a felony to protest near a military cemetery around the time a funeral is taking place, and a case (Phelps v Snyder, I believe) is before the Supreme Court debating whether they do have a constitutional right to protest. Phelps has also been banned outright from my own country, Britain.

The question is, though, should Phelps be banned from being able to protest in a majority of locations? Is it acceptable to ban him from a country outright?

I think no.

Yes, his views and methods are awful, but, unless he's handing out bombs and telling people to commit terrorist acts against homosexuals or breaking any other law (like trespassing), I feel he has a right to freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech, a right which I feel is protected nowhere near enough in Britain, is not designed to protect people from being offended or emotionally hurt. It is designed to allow people to speak their minds and debate issues, and shutting off opinions and closing down peaceful protests, even if a vast majority of a nation disagrees with the views expressed, is quite frankly undemocratic.

And hey, when Phelps dies, we can go to his funeral and practice our right to freedom of speech. devil.gif

Anyone disagree with me here?

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith


  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None


Posted 18 March 2011 - 04:59 AM

Absolutely not, I'm not going to allow another one of my rights be taken away simply due to some thick skulled extremist. (911 would be another perfect example)

I hate how we're treated like elementary kids.. one child throws a milk carton across the classroom therefore the whole class has recess taken away for the rest of the week.. it makes no sense.

  • post


  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2011


Posted 01 June 2011 - 11:48 PM

i feel better about this guy making his voice heard than i do a small, vocal minority changing our educational system, our speech, our laws and our media, and i'd rather see a hundred million people who get aroused by eating poo remain marginalized instead of celebrated than i would one man's freedom of religion and speech taken away.

  • Rown

    He who fights monsters

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2005
  • None


Posted 02 June 2011 - 05:56 PM

Censored in general? No, probably not. Though there should be some understanding that your freedoms can go beyond an area protected by the government.

You're free to do what you want until you start crossing other peoples lines. Then nature kicks in and you may get eaten. Rights come with responsibilities if there is any expectation of the system lasting. I feel the primary responsibility is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I'm most concerned with the funeral protests. There it becomes a direct and malicious affront to the wellbeing of others and "freedom" doesn't mean jack sh*t. There was talk that they would protest at the funeral of that young girl who died in the Tucson shooting back in January. Consequently, there was talk of another shooting in Tucson being likely if they did. They ultimately didn't show.

Rown rampage_ani.gif

  • Sam998


  • Joined: 03 Feb 2011


Posted 25 June 2011 - 03:47 AM

I think he is a disgrace to society, and in fact humanity as a whole, but there is no need to cause a slippery slope. I'm pretty sure that a little restriction on these people wouldn't turn into too much, but it's most likely not worth the risk.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users