Lisa Lampanelli vs West Boro Church

[BaneTheBrawler]

You can argue about how/where to draw the line as much as you want, but the fact is, some people will always exercise their right to be fucking stupid. No point in changing the laws to restrict them, they'll just find some other way to be fucking stupid.

Best solution is to do as LL did and use their stupidity to further something of value. And by LL, I mean Leaping Lizzy.

[Odon]

Dave chappelle in there too

STEP THE FUCK BACK MOTHER FUCKER WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING

[Tellahh]

Her stand-up is awful. She makes up for it with wicked Roasts though, such a cutthroat bitch lol. Solid props to her for this stunt too.

also, lolWBC

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.

[Kuya]

Imma kill this mici motherfucker

[Plow]

You guys are right, we should make it illegal to offend people.


In other words, gays gtfo.

[Tristam]

Everyone knows by now that WBC is a scam right? Half the family runs a law firm and they're exempt from paying taxes so they try to troll the fuck out of people to sue them and recoup costs. edit: blergh, I'm wrong, wiki says they're funded entirely by congregation. Now I hate humanity even more. Myself included.

Professional trolls.

[ZarakiKujata]

Isn't the Congregation mostly family members?

[kuronosan]

I'm not saying make it illegal to offend people. It's a constitutional right to be able to say what you want when you want to say it.

It's one thing to express an opinion because you're ignorant and don't know any better. It's another to spread hate, injustice, and hurtful shit because you're fucking retarded and won't listen to reason.

[Myrrh_Quetz]

It's another to spread hate, injustice, and hurtful shit because you're fucking retarded and won't listen to reason.

We talking about the Church or LL?

[hey]

I'm not saying make it illegal to offend people. It's a constitutional right to be able to say what you want when you want to say it.

It's one thing to express an opinion because you're ignorant and don't know any better. It's another to spread hate, injustice, and hurtful shit because you're fucking retarded and won't listen to reason.

Unless they are trying to incite violence, they have every right to be assholes. It is called "freedom". Don't like it? Move to china. Freedom of speech means they can say wtf ever they want, for any reason. They are not encroaching on anyone else's freedom, so any argument that does not amount to "they are annoying fucking assholes who deserve to get their asses kicked", is invalid.

And honestly, there really is no real difference here. EVERY church spreads hate, injustice and hurtful shit. The WBC is just more vocal about it. They are well within their right to do so, along with everyone else.

[kuronosan]

Unless they are trying to incite violence, they have every right to be assholes. It is called "freedom". Don't like it? Move to china.

Alright then. I'm going to stand outside a black person's house and say "Death to niggers". Then I'll stand outside a jew's house and say "Death to kikes". Then I'll stand outside your house after 9/11 and say "God did it because you and your family were faggots". Then I'll... well, you know? Fuck it. If you don't get the point, maybe you should move to China. It might make you smarter.

[hey]

Alright then. I'm going to stand outside a black person's house and say "Death to niggers". Then I'll stand outside a jew's house and say "Death to kikes". Then I'll stand outside your house after 9/11 and say "God did it because you and your family were faggots". Then I'll... well, you know? Fuck it. If you don't get the point, maybe you should move to China. It might make you smarter.

Doing so would make me hate you, but i would never argue your right to do it.

[Plow]

Alright then. I'm going to stand outside a black person's house and say "Death to niggers". Then I'll stand outside a jew's house and say "Death to kikes". Then I'll stand outside your house after 9/11 and say "God did it because you and your family were faggots". Then I'll... well, you know? Fuck it. If you don't get the point, maybe you should move to China. It might make you smarter.

name one case since Chaplinsky where the fighting words doctrine has been upheld

[kuronosan]

I can't. But are you telling me that these types of behaviors are meant to express opinion and not to incite hatred and violence? It's a blatant disruption of the peace. When people call cops or explore other methods of justice, they get told to fuck off because of the constitution.

Why is it that people should have the right to make other people miserable?

[Kurokikaze]

Dave chappelle in there too

I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills acquired over a very long career in the shadows, skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you take those words back, that will be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you. And I will kill you.

Seriously nigga, the fuck is wrong with you? Thats probably the best comedian of our generation.

[Plow]

I can't. But are you telling me that these types of behaviors are meant to express opinion and not to incite hatred and violence?

I'm telling you that it doesn't matter because the fighting words doctrine was one of the most blatant examples ever of disregarding the constitution's protection of free expression simply because you don't like what someone has to say, and as of the last time I looked (a couple years ago) it had never been upheld since.

It's a blatant disruption of the peace. When people call cops or explore other methods of justice, they get told to fuck off because of the constitution.

Why is it that people should have the right to make other people miserable?

Would it really be any different if the signs said "God hates gays?"

The fact of the matter is you can say whatever you want as long as it's not directly putting people in danger (bomb in an airport/plane, fire in a theater, etc). That's how it's always been outside one example which was actually a really shitty thing (upholding that someone can be arrested and charged for insulting a cop...), and that's how it always should be.

In case you didn't catch my example: It's an awfully slippery slope between telling people they can't say fag and telling people they can't publicly be "fags."

[Tyche]

I'm telling you that it doesn't matter because the fighting words doctrine was one of the most blatant examples ever of disregarding the constitution's protection of free expression simply because you don't like what someone has to say, and as of the last time I looked (a couple years ago) it had never been upheld since.




Would it really be any different if the signs said "God hates gays?"

The fact of the matter is you can say whatever you want as long as it's not directly putting people in danger (bomb in an airport/plane, fire in a theater, etc). That's how it's always been outside one example which was actually a really shitty thing (upholding that someone can be arrested and charged for insulting a cop...), and that's how it always should be.

In case you didn't catch my example: It's an awfully slippery slope between telling people they can't say fag and telling people they can't publicly be "fags."

It's never been upheld, although it's been used as principle in many cases. It's scope narrowed, Falwell v Penthouse hustler iirc. Still, if it was "blatant disregard" as you said, it would have been overturned in one of the many cases that used it as principle, and it hasn't.

[Plow]

If you'd like to actually argue that it's not blatant disregard for freedom of expression to say it's ok to arrest someone for calling a cop a racketeer and a fascist because they're trying to stop you from preaching restorationism, go right ahead.

[Tyche]

I didn't say that, the supreme court said it, and no supreme court has overruled it. Personally, I think it is, but I agree with the precedents set since then. The narrowed scope I believe, is fair. The scope allows for differences in public and private entities, direct and indirect threats. I think, over the years, they've managed to get it right. Still, Choplinsky set the bar.

[Plow]

well, on that note

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps