[Lady Raider]

Looks like President Obama is trying to put a stop to the westboro demo's

http://www.huffingto..._n_1748454.html

This may need to be moved if so mods please move it

[NC-17]

i have mixed feelings about this.

[TJB]

NC-17, on 07 August 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

i have mixed feelings about this.

So do I. People like these will make it more difficult for people when there is truly a real issue to protest.

This post has been edited by Boss Hogg: 07 August 2012 - 12:11 PM
Reason for edit: Language in Cafe

[NC-17]

TJB, on 07 August 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

So do I. People like these will make it more difficult for people when there is truly a real issue to protest.

when we start selectively restricting rights of groups we don't like, we need to keep in mind that we've also restricted the rights of the groups we do.

slippery slope...double edged sword...whatever other cliche's might apply. (i took a stupid pill this morning)

This post has been edited by Boss Hogg: 07 August 2012 - 12:11 PM
Reason for edit: Language in Cafe

[Jeanne O'Halleran Law]

Although I would certainly love to see the Westboro group stopped, I'm not sure that this law is going to accomplish that. It will probably take years to get before the Supreme Court, but I expect it will be deemed an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The government has the ability to put restrictions on free speech, if there is a compelling government reason, but I'm not sure that this will qualify. When the time comes, we need to hope that honoring our fallen soldiers is a compelling enough government reason for putting these restrictions on protestors. It certainly is in my book.

[Mr.Dis]

I see it more as a limitation on how and where they can protest. It is very common to require a group to sign up in advance and require them to adhere to a fixed set of guidelines in order to "legaly" assemle and protest. They have just added or strengthened a few more guidelines. For instance, having people line the interstate as pedestrian traffic won't be allowed because of the laws governing pedestrians on the interstate. It makes sense and it applies equally to everyone. So long as it does not limit ther right to make themselves look like the idots they are, then there is no problem. I still get a little miffed when I see the Shriners in the roadways. It is simply against the law. Firefighters can not do this for the boot drive anymore so why do we turn a blind eye to the shriners?

[Georgia Dawg]

Yes, very mixed feelings. Restricting First Amendments rights for only a select group? What's to prevent the government from restricting First Amendment rights for ALL?
Dangerous precedent.

[NC-17]

Georgia Dawg, on 07 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Yes, very mixed feelings. Restricting First Amendments rights for only a select group? What's to prevent the government from restricting First Amendment rights for ALL?
Dangerous precedent.

agreed.

[gog8tors]

Georgia Dawg, on 07 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Yes, very mixed feelings. Restricting First Amendments rights for only a select group? What's to prevent the government from restricting First Amendment rights for ALL?
Dangerous precedent.

I agree. As much as I really dislike this group, they still have first Amendment rights.

[Blondiega1]

NC-17, on 07 August 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

agreed.

Double agreed.

[momof 3]

This is an interesting topic because there has been topic after topic about how these people need to be stopped and now that a move has been made to do so, people have mixed feelings about it. It makes me wonder if anyone but Obama had attempted to do something if the sentiment would be the same.

[Mr.Dis]

momof 3, on 07 August 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

This is an interesting topic because there has been topic after topic about how these people need to be stopped and now that a move has been made to do so, people have mixed feelings about it. It makes me wonder if anyone but Obama had attempted to do something if the sentiment would be the same.

I'll give PIBO props for this.

[NC-17]

momof 3, on 07 August 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

This is an interesting topic because there has been topic after topic about how these people need to be stopped and now that a move has been made to do so, people have mixed feelings about it. It makes me wonder if anyone but Obama had attempted to do something if the sentiment would be the same.

regardless of who's behind the proposed selective first amendment revocations....i think it's a bad idea. i thin it's a slippery slope to start denying rights to certain sectors of the population.

[gog8tors]

momof 3, on 07 August 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

This is an interesting topic because there has been topic after topic about how these people need to be stopped and now that a move has been made to do so, people have mixed feelings about it. It makes me wonder if anyone but Obama had attempted to do something if the sentiment would be the same.

But, your missing that even though most agree this group must be stopped, it is also agreed that they have first amendment rights. Just like almost every one else.
The question will be how far are we willing to go? Today it is this group tomorrow it may be the group you stand with.

[Papi]

[momof 3]

NC-17, on 07 August 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

regardless of who's behind the proposed selective first amendment revocations....i think it's a bad idea. i thin it's a slippery slope to start denying rights to certain sectors of the population.

I don't disagree with you about it being a slippery slope, but when people want it stopped and someone tries to get that done, it's just odd that it suddenly becomes a slippery slope.

[NC-17]

momof 3, on 07 August 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

I don't disagree with you about it being a slippery slope, but when people want it stopped and someone tries to get that done, it's just odd that it suddenly becomes a slippery slope.

Wanting the group to stop, or wanting them to be stopped is completely different than wanting the government to step in and revoke a right.... I think sticks and rocks are a better option.

[Blondiega1]

NC-17, on 07 August 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Wanting the group to stop, or wanting them to be stopped is completely different than wanting the government to step in and revoke a right.... I think sticks and rocks are a better option.

Agreed.
Can I bring rotten tomatoes?

[Georgia Dawg]

Blondiega1, on 07 August 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Agreed.
Can I bring rotten tomatoes?

Nope.

Bring Zombies!

http://paulding.com/...01#entry3672001

[NC-17]

Georgia Dawg, on 07 August 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Nope.

Bring Zombies!

http://paulding.com/...01#entry3672001

Marry me.

[Georgia Dawg]

NC-17, on 07 August 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Marry me.

Don't think that's legal in Georgia.

[afewcardsshy]

momof 3, on 07 August 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

This is an interesting topic because there has been topic after topic about how these people need to be stopped and now that a move has been made to do so, people have mixed feelings about it. It makes me wonder if anyone but Obama had attempted to do something if the sentiment would be the same.

"The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro's were protected under the First Amendment. "



Not the first time that Obama has countered this court. People I do not agree with the WBC but I certainly disagree more with his neew law. And could care les that our president is Black, he is as worthless as the POTUS as J. Carter was. That man abuses his pen and we the nation suffer. When he wins this next election, I bet he tries to do away with term limits in his office. Why would anyone back this law, he did it for votes, because he just pissed on the troops he must regain confidence.

This post has been edited by afewcardsshy: 07 August 2012 - 07:23 PM

[gog8tors]

afewcardsshy, on 07 August 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

"The law counters a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which found that displays such as Westboro's were protected under the First Amendment. "



Not the first time that Obama has countered this court. People I do not agree with the WBC but I certainly disagree more with his neew law. And could care les that our president is Black, he is as worthless as the POTUS as J. Carter was. That man abuses his pen and we the nation suffer. When he wins this next election, I bet he tries to do away with term limits in his office. Why would anyone back this law, he did it for votes, because he just pissed on the troops he must regain confidence.

And, that is the problem. How many Obamanites actually read "his" autobiography? How many actually listened to what he had to say? How many voted for him ONLY because he is half black?

[lowrider]

Georgia Dawg, on 07 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Yes, very mixed feelings. Restricting First Amendments rights for only a select group? What's to prevent the government from restricting First Amendment rights for ALL?
Dangerous precedent.

Exactly!

And I'm a big proponent of free speech.

Who will be next?

I don't agree with it at all.

And I can't stand that crazy loony tune of inbred zealots.




.