Blogcritics Comments on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Comment by Mark Adams on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:38:03 EDT

Isaiah, If you are still following this thread, are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church? Visit my blog (see URL) if you want to contact by e-mail. ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 20:13:23 EDT

And why is he referring us to a 7th day adventist parenting group site? Last I checked Christ actually prohibited the spilling of blood and certainly didn't do it himself, but then that's in the Bible, and I doubt Isaiah is familiar with that obscure work. dave ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 20:10:30 EDT

Is Isaiah Amish? He seems to think that bicycles have engines. Dave ]]>

Comment by Baronius on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 20:03:10 EDT

"You only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life." Really, that's what you're going to use? I had hoped for a smarter argument than that. Were Job's children evil? Is Hugh Hefner pious? The average lifespan in India has skyrocketed in the past 50 years: does that mean that Hinduism is now approved by Christ? As I pointed out earlier, Luke 13 condemns exactly this kind of cause-effect thinking. Similarly, Jesus made strong statements against the rich, which would seem to contradict the Old Testament view of wealth as reward. There is no contradiction in Scripture, so you should re-examine the conclusions you're drawing. Holiness isn't expressed in units of currency or years. If you want to enlighten people, you have to engage them. Paul debated the Greeks. He didn't confuse people by picketing outside funerals. You'll find that you don't persuade anyone by telling them that they hate God. The disciple who walks into town and shakes the dust off his feet isn't a disciple. He's a dust-shaker. ]]>

Comment by -E on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 17:37:20 EDT

Congrats! This article has been selected as one of this week's Editors' Picks. ]]>

Comment by Mark Adams on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 12:01:38 EDT

Isaiah: Stick figures depicting homosexual acts? You actually defend these? That's pornography plain and simple. ]]>

Comment by Isaiah on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 11:56:25 EDT

I think you are refering to stick figures. ]]>

Comment by Mark Adams on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 11:40:24 EDT

As it is my duty to warn my "fellow man" that if he doesn't repent, he will go to hell, I will begin with you. How can you defend Fred Phelps, a known pornographer? I visited his sites and I am sickened. (It's painful for me to describe, but I will be succinct.) On his websites (including the one you told me to visit!) are images of two men engaged in a homosexual act! Even more egregiously, one of the sites portrays a CHILD WITNESSING THE ACT! About a year ago, I e-mailed Phelps warning him that not only was the image offensive, but that they were sinful. Instead of heeding my warning, Phelps continues to display that pornographic image, publishing it name of Christ! Further, Phelps and his followers REPRODUCE it and DISPLAY IT PUBLICALLY! If I were a sheriff in a community and such a banner was displayed, I would arrest Fred Phelps for obscenity. But you, my friend, condone and even support the spreading of pornographic images. Phelps "claims" he is opposed to homosexuality, but he displays images of it? "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." (Matthew 13:25) You also, my friend, are a pornographer, for you refer people to websites with pornographic images. REPENT! I say. REPENT! "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things." (Romans 2:1-2) Isaiah, your soul is in peril. I command you NOT to visit pornographic sites. I command you to repudiate any connection you have with the sinner Fred Phelps. Repent! You also write: "2nd of all, you only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life:" Are you serious? So anyone who dies young is going to hell? My savior Jesus Christ died in his early 30s. Is he in hell? REPENT! REPENT! REPENT! Postscript: To all others, I'm just giving it as it is given. ]]>

Comment by Bliffle on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 11:22:01 EDT

Isaiah"...it is about God's wrath and all of the blood that will be spilt by Christ." You are really bloodthirsty, aren't you? ]]>

Comment by Isaiah on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Wed, 31 May 2006 08:02:37 EDT

Your duty to your fellow man is to warn them if they don't repent they are going to Hell. That is how you love your neighbour: Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. 1st of all, yes, we do know a lot about these soldiers, by reading an article or two. 2nd of all, you only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life: Proverbs 3:1 � My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. If you say we are harassing people going into the funerals while on PUBLIC PROPERTY, then words cease to have meaning. The Patriot Gaurd Riders, or Biker Chicks as they are more appropriately called, stand on the actual funeral home property. So, it's not about disrupting a funeral, because those counter protestors rev their bycicle engines. It isn't even about protesting the funeral at all; it's about what the words are. The Biker Chicks say God loves the dead soldiers cursed of God, and we say the soldier is in Hell. I know for a fact that you hate God because of your extreme ignorance towards the scriptures and you willingness to believe the lie your priest told you that God loves everyone. If you care about your never dying soul, you will open the Bible for once in your miserable life and read the words that are written there, and you will pretty quickly see the wrath of God over and over and over in the Bible. You will also see these three words or words like it over and over and over: Keep my commandments. In Revelation, which tells of the return of Christ, it is not very loving at all. In fact, it is about God's wrath and all of the blood that will be spilt by Christ. You are Bible-illiterate and Hell-bound. You all should go to www.thesignsofthetimes.net to see some really good videos. I'm done with this, because you are never going to understand this, because God has hardened your heart so that you cannot repent and be healed. ]]>

Comment by Mark Adams on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 18:24:31 EDT

Al Barger, I hear you man. I'm doubtful on many points, but we've always assumed that there are some limits to speech. I would not go so far as to prohibit hate speech outright, but when the intent is to harass, a line has been crossed. I'm far more comfortable with the law considering the circumstances. Check out their website and look at the photos; they are freaking insane. P.S. To anyone who thinks they can defend what they are doing, I'll take you down (I'm ready for you). I'm not talking about arguing over their right to protest, but the intellectual and spiritual content of the material itself. ]]>

Comment by Al Barger on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 16:54:31 EDT

I'm REAL skeptical of any new law on this topic, particularly as it would be specifying certain types of speech for banning. Seems like there should be plenty enough legal grounds for minimal control of this idiot just based on common laws against personal harassment. Beyond that, some of these Patriot Guard Riders ought to just severally and severely beat this fool down the next time he gets up in some grieving mother's face. Which wins out, Phelps desire for attention, or his desire not to be beaten bloody? I'd rather lean on the good sense of a jury to refuse to convict someone under such circumstances than to start passing more laws. As they say, making laws in response to specific bad cases makes for bad laws. ]]>

Comment by Mark Adams on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 15:32:58 EDT

Christopher Rose: Phelps is wrong, and his religious impulse are wrong. He does have the right to speak, but not to harass. That's my point. Congress and the president were right to limit these demonstrations. ]]>

Comment by Christopher Rose on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 14:33:18 EDT

Richard, you're really going for advanced buffoonery today. It's completely intellectually dishonest to switch the topic to environmental protection but, following your feint, the reason these precious and limited natural riches are under threat is because of the uncontrolled over-consumption and abuse of these strictly limited resources by humanity. Devoting some of our resources to trying to protect the environment which makes all life possible doesn't seem like a bad idea to me and certainly has nothing to do with your original specious argument. I don't think the effort to protect such biodiversity can be considered in the same light as your racist arguments. As to Mr Adams original point, he seems to be trying to suggest that Phelps is wrong but the religious impulses he draws upon are not. I could not, of course, agree with such a visionary interpretation. ]]>

Comment by Mark Adams on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 14:06:21 EDT

Belligerence is not protected speech. The aim of the First Amendment is to foster the exchange of ideas, not give some one or some group the right to harass people with distasteful signs. In a democratic society, citizens are able to determine what speech is offensive. The bill, which Bush recently signed, does not prevent the Phelps from expressing his views, only from harassing mourning families. That said, I would not be surprised if in court action the Supreme Court overturned the bill, though I hope they do not. I think a rational argument can be made in favor of it, that also protects speech. BTW: Joanie's link in comment #35 is revealing. What a devil that man is. Some are offended that he calls himself a Christian. Others that he says he's an American. I'm offended that he sees himself as a human being. Also, I think it is ironic that he puts a cartoon of men engaging in sex on his website. Doesn't he oppose that sort of thing? ]]>

Comment by Richard Brodie on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 13:49:17 EDT

no particular DNA set is worth preserving if it doesn't survive naturally. Please do me a favor, Chris, and pass this little tidbit of wisdom along to the Sierra Club environmentalist freakazoids. Maybe they'll stop wasting so many precious resources of land and money trying to artificially preserve every last variety of bird, fish, and insect species that "doesn't survive naturally." Unless of course you meant it to be restricted only to the human species. ]]>

Comment by Christopher Rose on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 13:37:43 EDT

Richard, we don't live in a museum, no particular DNA set is worth preserving if it doesn't survive naturally. I think you're just having a tantrum because blondes are now an endangered species. I'd have thought as a good American and a capitalist, you would have understood the pointlessness of protectionism. The rest of your remarks about dictatorship et cetera are so deluded I'm simply going to ignore most of them. I'll just point out that you seem to think all ideas should be treated with equal respect. It is, however, neither hypocritical or hateful to describe ideas as either stupid or laughable when they actually are... ]]>

Comment by Richard Brodie on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 13:29:12 EDT

Chris, you have a dictatorial mentality in the pure tradition of Napoleanic law (everything is forbidden except what is explicitly permitted) and as such are a traitor to the opposite, English common law tradition (everything is permitted except what is explicitly forbidden) which formed the foundation of the American republic. Nowhere did I state that any form of human variety is more deserving of being preserved than any other. No single race has a monopoly on being "special" or "elevated" above other races. In fact every race has its own special characteristics, making all races, cultures, and ethnicities worthy of being preserved. And you are being hypocritically inconsistent. Without actually using the word "hate", you are are, by using hostile terms like "stupid" and "laughable" acting in precisely the same manner towards me that you claim you would not tolerate your neighbor acting toward you! Be thankful that I am the type of a person who defends you right to speak hatefully towards my position, and that I would never try to get the government to muzzle you, the way you favor having the government muzzle me. ]]>

Comment by Christopher Rose on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 13:11:37 EDT

I'm afraid I have to maintain my disagreement with you, Richard. If someone follows me round in public places expressing hostile remarks to me and my family in a civil manner, which would actually be creepier than having them angry, I'm not going to tolerate it. Richard, your subsequent subtly worded position would be respectable and even sane were it not for the fact that it is a pile of racist pseudo-scientific nonsense. There is only one race, the human race. Sure, there are some slight DNA coding differences for those who live in areas of particularly high or low solar radiation, normal stuff like that but nothing to support your risible little thesis. If you want to preserve the classic Nordic blonde stereotype for example, simply haul you and your family as far North as you can and let Nature work its magic. We call this "hate speech" because you are in fact taking minor, normal genetic variation within a single species and somehow trying to argue that it is in some way "special", to elevate it above other humans in some way. It's so wilfully stupid that there seems no other possible explanation to explain your laughable position. ]]>

Comment by Richard Brodie on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 12:52:38 EDT

the interpretation of the first amendment doesn't draw much of a distinction between speech and actions equivalent to speech - like burning a flag. Well, Dave, speech itself is a "action". I think the term action in this context means setting in motion other parts of the body besides one's vocal chords, tongue, and lips, with the intent to try and inflict physical injury. That's the distinction. Burning a flag lacks such intent. Chris: we'll have to disagree, Richard. We may not be as far apart as you think. My comments were not meant as a justification of Phelps' behavior. And in the case of your hypothetical obnoxious neighbor, his crime is violating your property rights - essentially tresspassing with unwanted sound (Phelps is tresspassing on the cemetary's property.) He still has the right to express his hatred towards you in a non-physically-threatening manner, should he encounter you in a public place. This can have the healthy effect of getting one's feelings out into the open where they have a chance of being resolved, rather than bottling them up and seething until there is some kind of a violent explosion. He also has the right to talk about his feelings in conversation with other neighbors, either in person or on the internet, provided he does not say anything slanderous. What worries me about the hate speech legislation advocates is that they seek to outlaw speech that is not directed against any particular individual, and even against speech that is inaccurately labelled as hateful. For example, I am a diversity preservation advocate who believes that it is even more important in the case of the homo sapiens species than it is for species of birds, fish, and insects, to set aside habitat preserves conducive to the preservation of diverse specie varieties. In plain language I am in favor of segregation. Not a segregation based on hatred of other varieties (races)- but rather one based on a respect for every race to be able to take pride in it's own characteristics, and experience a desire to see itself perpetuated rather than annihilated. This as you know is not considered a "politically correct" position to take, and those in the PC mainstream will be desirous of using government power to silence me, by arbitrarily designating such a position "hate speech". The concept of hate speech thus becomes simply a disingenuous artifice (to put it politely) to make sure that YOUR postion is the only one allowed to be heard. ]]>

Comment by Mark Adams on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Tue, 30 May 2006 11:15:46 EDT

IgnatiusReilly, It may sound as if the ruling is about not allowing people to yell "fire" in a movie house, but I do not think that is the issue. In this case, the matter concerns overstepping the bounds of common decency. I think this case is extraordinary. Normally, I would oppose such a ruling, but these demonstrations border on harassment. There is a line and I think Phelps stepped over it. ]]>

Comment by Dave Nalle on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Sun, 28 May 2006 13:52:28 EDT

Bliff, the interpretation of the first amendment doesn't draw much of a distinction between speech and actions equivalent to speech - like burning a flag. Dave ]]>

Comment by IgnatiusReilly on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Sun, 28 May 2006 13:38:11 EDT

This ruling sounds just like not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie house. It is amusing to watch "Christians" arguing with each other over the Bible. Unfortunately, when they cease to exist they will be unaware that there is no heaven or hell. ]]>

Comment by Bliffle on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Sun, 28 May 2006 13:22:38 EDT

I'm having a hard time reconciling the title of this article, which is about limiting SPEECH, with the rationalizations which seem to legitimize that based on ACTIONS. Sorry to be so stupid. ]]>

Comment by Christopher Rose on Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Sun, 28 May 2006 11:53:54 EDT

Well, we'll have to disagree, Richard. If you come round to my house and exercise your freedom of speech to make hateful or threatening remarks to me and my loved ones, to such a degree that we feel intimidated, I'm going to stop you, whatever it takes. If I can do it legally fine but if not, you better have better weapons than me and the will to use 'em, cos otherwise you're going down. I believe most people can see that not all aggression or violence is physical, as you so naively believe, and have wisely taken reasonable steps to limit people's ability to harm others. ]]>