Lisa Lampanelli vs West Boro Church

[Mizango]

Americans in general (the stupid ones) don't care about freedom at all. They care about the idea of freedom as a convenience (sound like Christianity much?) to their individual self. If someone does something to inconvenience them, they cry constitutional rights. If they do something to inconvenience someone else, they cry constitutional rights.

What it all boils down to is that many Americans just want to be able to do whatever they want to without consequence. That sounds like a child to me. Adults have freedoms too, you know. They earned it by being responsible.

If you don't mind, i'm just going to dick ride you the entire time. You're taking what I plan to say it, but saying it far better than I could lol.

fuck a Dane Cook or Mencia. Fast food comedians gets no respect from me.

^

[solanis]

I fucking hate her as a comic, but fuck WBC too. I hope they have a violent shoot out and kill each other.
Get Carlos mencia, Dane cook, and Dave chappelle in there too and I will start to believe in a god.

given the chance to name three alternate comedians, you pick mencia, dane cook, and dave chappelle? methinks you have no ground to stand on sir

[Dantrag]

Dane Cook is one of the worst fucking comedians ever.

[Uzor]

Where does the freedom stop and the responsibility begin? I'd love to see less hate mongers in the US, but can we really stop them because we don't like what they are doing/saying? The precedent has been set. Freedom is much more important to Americans than individual responsibility. How do we turn that around and force accountability on people that will cry foul if you so much as mention amending our freedoms. [Sarcasm]Maybe we need another terrorist attack so our government can enact the "Responsible Citizen Act". [/Sarcasm]

Isn't what they do comparable to KKK standing outside a funeral for a black man saying "Bitch be dead"?

What's the difference between racists protesting outside a black funeral (which I'm somewhat sure would be considered slander and insults), while it's completely OK for a religious bigots to do the same thing?

Freedom of speech is all fine and dandy, but when people's feelings start getting hurt, you should draw the line - especially when it tramples on their personal space or hinders their normal lives; such as the right to mourn in peace.

[Dantrag]

Because if it's under the guise of religion it's always ok? I mean look at Bill-o. Every time he has a religious debate about how good it is and people bring up all the killing that came about due to it. He goes "ok give me an example other than the crusades."

[solanis]

Isn't what they do comparable to KKK standing outside a funeral for a black man saying "Bitch be dead"?

What's the difference between racists protesting outside a black funeral (which I'm somewhat sure would be considered slander and insults), while it's completely OK for a religious bigots to do the same thing?

Freedom of speech is all fine and dandy, but when people's feelings start getting hurt, you should draw the line - especially when it tramples on their personal space or hinders their normal lives; such as the right to mourn in peace.

I think people's feelings getting hurt is a bit of a retarded line, lol

[Uzor]

it's like, if you start a religion, it's OK to insult anyone. Because if anyone protests against it, you can sue them and go cry that you're a religion and they won't allow you to believe in what you want.

And Solanis, I agree, but I don't mean it like that. I meant more like, what WBC do outside funerals is just obviously wrong. It's illegal to call a black guy a nigger, why shouldn't it be illegal to say "God hates fags, you all deserved to die"? It's illegal to "intentionally infliction of emotional distress", which I'd argue WBC do in a lot of cases.

[Aurara]

Because if it's under the guise of religion it's always ok? I mean look at Bill-o. Every time he has a religious debate about how good it is and people bring up all the killing that came about due to it. He goes "ok give me an example other than the crusades."

He also thinks the tides are controlled by god, so i mean~

[Kerberoz]

What it all boils down to is that many Americans just want to be able to do whatever they want to without consequence.

What it all boils down to is that many humans just want to be able to do whatever they want to without consequence.

What it all boils down to is that all humans just want to be able to do whatever they want to without consequence.

What it all boils down to is that all sapient species just want to be able to do whatever they want to without consequence.

Fix'd for reality.

[archibaldcrane]

It's a clever way to make them "pay" for their protests, but they really don't give a shit if 50k goes to AIDS research or whateverthefuck. She's again giving them more attention, which is what they want.

tl;dr she got trolled

[aurik]

They should be free to say what they like, no matter how vile.

People should get over it.

[hey]

It's a word people throw around to justify or ridicule irresponsible behavior as they see it.

I was not advocating the people doing the hate mongering. I was pointing out that creating personal responsibility laws is a really sticky situation because everyone has their own moral compass and most of them don't point north.

Yet 9 times out of 10, people will give up all the freedom in world to SAVE THE CHILDREN, protect themselves from themselves, and other stupid shit, that does not benefit them in any way.

[Acevalefor]

Yet 9 times out of 10, people will give up all the freedom in world to SAVE THE CHILDREN, protect themselves from themselves, and other stupid shit, that does not benefit them in any way.

Just file that with "mindless stupidity" and put your "you can't fix stupid" stamp on it.

[Dimmauk]

It's a clever way to make them "pay" for their protests, but they really don't give a shit if 50k goes to AIDS research or whateverthefuck. She's again giving them more attention, which is what they want.

tl;dr she got trolled

This. Never feed the trolls. Its her 50k though.

[Tyrath]

This isn't a case of feeding the trolls at all. Not like she got tricked into giving away the money. Obviously she cares enough to support the cause (and can afford to). Sure it doesn't do anything to WBP, but technically they don't "do" anything to anyone either.

It's a symbolic gesture which is getting put towards a good cause, theres nothing wrong with that.

[ZarakiKujata]

Dave chappelle

Props to Headspace for jumpin on this shit, but seriously son, get off the internet and get some fucking taste.

Also LL is no Gilbert Gottfried, Jeff Ross, or Greg Giraldo but she owns at the Roasts.

[Amastacia]

Isn't what they do comparable to KKK standing outside a funeral for a black man saying "Bitch be dead"?

What's the difference between racists protesting outside a black funeral (which I'm somewhat sure would be considered slander and insults), while it's completely OK for a religious bigots to do the same thing?

Freedom of speech is all fine and dandy, but when people's feelings start getting hurt, you should draw the line - especially when it tramples on their personal space or hinders their normal lives; such as the right to mourn in peace.

WBC is always on public property when they stage their protests.

If they were on private property, they could be held liable. They never do, because the whole fucking family is a bunch of laywers looking for opportunities to sue anyone and everyone.

Strictly speaking, KKK could stand (on public property) outside a black funeral and protest. Racist speech is constitutionally protected, sadly.

That said, they could get in trouble if they used "fighting words" like nigger. Amusingly/sadly/ironically/whateverly, nigger is legally considered a fighting word, especially if uttered by a white person, but fag is not, even if it's uttered by a homophobe.

[Milkster]

That said, they could get in trouble if they used "fighting words" like nigger. Amusingly/sadly/ironically/whateverly, nigger is legally considered a fighting word, especially if uttered by a white person, but fag is not, even if it's uttered by a homophobe.

Nigger isn't a racial slur as defined by the dictionary, means "ignorant, lazy person". Just that's what it's associated with is black people. Fag is a bundle of sticks and a cigarette and has only been homophobic for the last 40 or so years versus somethings that has 300 years of use in one way. That's one way out of it. Not trying to justify it, just sayin'. Also people still believe being gay is something you can control, color you can not.

[Bingbong]

People should get over it.

QFT.

If you cry freedom, you can't curtail it because you don't like the message.
Somewhere along the line people started thinking if something offended them, it needed to be ceased... no.
Part of freedom, is the freedom of being offended, and having the person doing the offending be able to tell you to go fuck yourself.

You can no more tell the WBC to stop, as you could tell the people supporting Lampanelli to stop.

[Tyche]

QFT.

If you cry freedom, you can't curtail it because you don't like the message.
Somewhere along the line people started thinking if something offended them, it needed to be ceased... no.
Part of freedom, is the freedom of being offended, and having the person doing the offending be able to tell you to go fuck yourself.

You can no more tell the WBC to stop, as you could tell the people supporting Lampanelli to stop.

Not quite that easy, generally speaking, it's illegal to spread any sort of message that are expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target. I never understood how they manage to skirt that.

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

I guess, with the bolded part, they are allowed because they're a church.