CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think that WBC has every right to be at the funeral spreading their message. They are certainly protected under the freedom of speech. However, they are taking their lives and safety into question when treading on the feelings of families who are hurting. If their members get hurt or are attacked, I can't say that I will feel sorry for them. I don't know why we give them so much attention, we don't give much thought to those certain crazy people in the streets. All WBC wants is attention and whether that be supportive or destructive, we are still enabling them to continue to spread their poisonous message.
The Arizona legislature is pursuing a bill that will require protesters to protest at least 300 feet from the service, but this is a clear infringement on the freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech should be an absolute regardless.
It is abundantly and explicitly strict in the First Amendment to the United States of America, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"
While I am not yet completely certain how I feel about the principle of this bill, I feel its context is important.
The Westboro Baptist Church made it clear they were intending to picket the funeral of a 9 year old victim of the Gabriel Gifford shooting. I would not advocate that the WBC or anybody be forbidden from protesting everywhere, but their style is extremely disruptive and disrespectful, and I can imagine few things that would make someone feel angrier or more violated than having the death of a loved one joyously celebrated by hateful strangers who believed it was well-deserved divine punishment. Freedom of speech does not and should not guarantee the right to harass or threaten people, even on public property, and the actions of the WBC (and anyone slimy enough to picket a funeral) are harassment of the mourners.
They can still say whatever they want, in any case, they just have to do it 301 feet away.
The Westboro Baptist Church made it clear they were intending to picket the funeral of a 9 year old victim of the Gabriel Gifford shooting.
Nobody has the right to stop them unless you are the government.
I would not advocate that the WBC or anybody be forbidden from protesting everywhere, but their style is extremely disruptive and disrespectful, and I can imagine few things that would make someone feel angrier or more violated than having the death of a loved one joyously celebrated by hateful strangers who believed it was well-deserved divine punishment.
Freedom of Speech isn't about hurting feelings, being respectful, or concerned if being disruptive, it is about freely exercising speech without abridgment. Some people apparently like yourself are a little too sensitive to others feelings.
Freedom of speech does not and should not guarantee the right to harass or threaten people, even on public property, and the actions of the WBC (and anyone slimy enough to picket a funeral) are harassment of the mourners.
They are not threatening anyone nor harassing anyone. They are protesting about their hatred of homosexuals. Not one word has been spoken in hatred of the victims or military soldiers.
They can still say whatever they want, in any case, they just have to do it 301 feet away.
No, they should be able to say whatever and wherever they want even right outside the door of the church. This is America. The founding fathers were clear in First Amendment to the United States of America.
Freedom of Speech isn't about hurting feelings, being respectful, or concerned if being disruptive, it is about freely exercising speech without abridgment.
The disruptive part is the most pivotal; yes, people should be allowed to be rude and disrespectful, but they are not allowed to infringe upon other people's rights to conduct their own business without being harassed.
Some people apparently like yourself are a little too sensitive to others feelings.
I am satisfied to be this way rather than callous to them. We live in a community, and in communities, empathy is required.
They are not threatening anyone nor harassing anyone.
Secondly, I do not want to get caught up solely discussing the WBC, because I understand the legislature does not apply to them. I do not to see how you can think that picketing a funeral, thereby disturbing the mourners in a very profound and fundamental way, does not qualify as harassment.
They are protesting about their hatred of homosexuals. Not one word has been spoken in hatred of the victims or military soldiers.
Completely incorrect. The WBC openly celebrates the shooting deaths, and confesses to praying for more murders.
No, they should be able to say whatever and wherever they want even right outside the door of the church. This is America. The founding fathers were clear in First Amendment to the United States of America.
I do not believe freedom of speech should extend to the right to harass, threaten, or impinge upon the rights of other citizens.
people should be allowed to be rude and disrespectful, but they are not allowed to infringe upon other people's rights to conduct their own business without being harassed.
Being rude and disrespectful go hand in hand with harassment. So, how can you accept being rude and disrepectful but not harassment? Harassment is just be rude and disrespectful yet persisently.
People are being harassed everyday. Do you want to legislate the prohibition of bullying in high school? Well, oh wait, they already tried that in some states, and it failed miserably. Can you really throw students into jail for harrassment? No.
It is senseless.
I am satisfied to be this way rather than callous to them. We live in a community, and in communities, empathy is required.
Why should empathy required in a community? Should I go through the obituaries and mourn for every single death? Do you plan to lobby for a law that requires that I have empathy?
I do not to see how you can think that picketing a funeral, thereby disturbing the mourners in a very profound and fundamental way, does not qualify as harassment.
It is harassment, but I don't think harassment is wrong. Movie stars, sports athletes, and political officials deal with harassment everyday. Should be legislate that to?
Completely incorrect. The WBC openly celebrates the shooting deaths, and confesses to praying for more murders.
Ok, they have celebrated the shooting deaths, but they still have that right, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T PHYSICALLY HURT ANYONE. This is a peaceable assemble.
I do not believe freedom of speech should extend to the right to harass, threaten, or impinge upon the rights of other citizens.
Well, I don't. In this case, nobody was threaten. I agree freedom of speech doesn't involve threatening violence, but they haven't done that either.
Being rude and disrespectful go hand in hand with harassment. So, how can you accept being rude and disrepectful but not harassment? Harassment is just be rude and disrespectful yet persisently.
People are being harassed everyday. Do you want to legislate the prohibition of bullying in high school? Well, oh wait, they already tried that in some states, and it failed miserably. Can you really throw students into jail for harrassment? No.
It is senseless.
This is not about bullying at school or anything else. This is about picketing at funerals, which clearly qualifies are harassment.
If you want to discuss the merits of qualifying other things that harassment, make a new debate about it.
Why should empathy required in a community? Should I go through the obituaries and mourn for every single death? Do you plan to lobby for a law that requires that I have empathy?
Is this actually what you think I am saying? It's not like you don't have actual points to make, so there's no need for you to make such stupid strawmen.
Empathy is a byproduct of our evolution as communal animals, and normal development endows all of us with it, whether or not we use it, or whether we use it for good or ill. I said nothing about legislating it, or trying to make it mandatory; it simply is, and people who fail or refuse to be empathetic towards others generally do not do very well in a community.
It is harassment, but I don't think harassment is wrong. Movie stars, sports athletes, and political officials deal with harassment everyday. Should be legislate that to?
No one should be allowed to disrupt a celebrity's funeral with picketing, either.
Ok, they have celebrated the shooting deaths, but they still have that right, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T PHYSICALLY HURT ANYONE. This is a peaceable assemble.
Someone can ruin another person's life without ever even mentioning violence. Use your imagination.
Well, I don't. In this case, nobody was threaten. I agree freedom of speech doesn't involve threatening violence, but they haven't done that either.
I did not say they did. I said they were harassing people. If this is where we differ fundamentally on how much people should be allowed to violate the rights of others, then there is nowhere to go from here, really.
I'm not sure the founding fathers would have supported screaming angry protests right outside the doors to a funeral. The founding fathers also had a moral compass and a sense of what was proper, and assumed that others had also. And the proof of this is that the constitution specifically says the right to "peaceable assemble". Shouting hateful things at a family grieving the loss of their 9 year old daughter is not viewed as "peaceable" by most.
And the proof of this is that the constitution specifically says the right to "peaceable assemble"
Right it does say peaceable assembly, but that is not proof of thier moral compass. The peacable assembly means the right to protest without violence. These protesters have not physically hurt one person in their protesting, and shouting and hurting one's feeling is not included.
Shouting hateful things at a family grieving the loss of their 9 year old daughter is not viewed as "peaceable" by most.
Who have they hurt physically? It is an peaceful assemble.
The Constitution states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does not explicitly imply the ability to keep firearms, but that the right to bear arms as a prerequisite of a free state for security shall not be infringed.
Or we could say that the Fed and the IRS are implied by several statements:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
"to borrow money on the credit of the United States"
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The constitutional Grey zone goes on. It always turns out to be pyrrhic victory for one of the belligerents as the other walks away leaving the issue, ultimately, unresolved, but, nominally, a victory for one after much pointless discourse.
But that is exactly the problem! If the constitution was supposed to be followed to verbatim, then it wouldn't survive into the modern age. The elastic clause, for instance, what do you think the framers believed about that? It obviously left it open to interpretation, not just the enumerated powers. Much of the language is actually left ambiguous to allow for contingencies.
They are not threatening anyone nor harassing anyone. They are protesting about their hatred of homosexuals. Not one word has been spoken in hatred of the victims or military soldiers.
What, then, does a homosexual have to do with the deceased soldier?
The Arizona legislature is pursuing a bill that will require protesters to protest at least 300 feet from the service, but this is a clear infringement on the freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech should be an absolute regardless.
Are they or are they not allowed to say what they wish?
If yes, then it is not a violation. If not, then it is, which means it must be carefully considered.
It is abundantly and explicitly strict in the First Amendment to the United States of America, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"
There are no exceptions.
Unless of course you yell "fire!" in a theatre, threaten to kill someone, leak classified information, explain how to construct weapons of mass destruction, etc.
But harassing the parents of a deceased child? No, any restriction is condemned I suppose.
I think Samuel Clemens said it best when he wrote, "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either."
Unless of course you yell "fire!" in a theatre, threaten to kill someone, leak classified information, explain how to construct weapons of mass destruction, etc.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium is totally different from matters of respect like this. Yelling "fire" causes mass disruption and is also a lie (unless there really is a fire, in which case it would be OK). Teaching people how to commit illegal activities (like building a WMD) also can cause mass disruption and loss of life, as can leaking classified information. Peaceful protesting in front of a funeral is not causing any loss of life or mass disruption and, thus should be protected by the 1st amendment. If being disrespectful violates the 1st amendment, then making fun of politician, or ridiculing them would be illegal. Also any media that could possibly offend someone would also be illegal. I'm simply not willing to give up my rights over something like respecting funerals.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium is totally different from matters of respect like this. Yelling "fire" causes mass disruption and is also a lie (unless there really is a fire, in which case it would be OK).
How is it different? Protesting at a funeral is intended to cause disruption and in this case it is spreading a lie since homosexuals do not cause children to die in misfortune.
Teaching people how to commit illegal activities (like building a WMD) also can cause mass disruption and loss of life, as can leaking classified information.
Again, protesting a funeral is causing mass disruption.
Peaceful protesting in front of a funeral is not causing any loss of life or mass disruption and, thus should be protected by the 1st amendment.
It is not peaceful protest, because the protest is designed to disrupt the funeral and provoke violent retribution.
If being disrespectful violates the 1st amendment, then making fun of politician, or ridiculing them would be illegal. Also any media that could possibly offend someone would also be illegal. I'm simply not willing to give up my rights over something like respecting funerals.
You're not willing to give up your right to protest right next to family in mourning, despite that a serial funeral crasher team intends to antagonize these people to the brink of violence.
How is it different? Protesting at a funeral is intended to cause disruption and in this case it is spreading a lie since homosexuals do not cause children to die in misfortune.
Again, protesting a funeral is causing mass disruption.
It is not peaceful protest, because the protest is designed to disrupt the funeral and provoke violent retribution.
I'm not saying that all protesting should be allowed. Obviously if the goal of the protesting is to harass the people who are grieving, and cause disruption in the services, then the mourners should call the police and shut down the protest. But what if someone dies of breast cancer and at their funeral people are silently holding signs asking the government to support breast cancer research? Is that disrupting the funeral and causing mass chaos and violence as you seem to suggest?
It is not peaceful protest, because the protest is designed to disrupt the funeral and provoke violent retribution.
Again, you seem incredibly close-minded that all protesting at funerals has the goal of disrupting the services and harassing the mourners.
I'm not saying that all protesting should be allowed. Obviously if the goal of the protesting is to harass the people who are grieving, and cause disruption in the services, then the mourners should call the police and shut down the protest.
But what if someone dies of breast cancer and at their funeral people are silently holding signs asking the government to support breast cancer research? Is that disrupting the funeral and causing mass chaos and violence as you seem to suggest?
These types of people would be respectful of the mourning families and would probably give a wide berth to prevent any kind of hurt.
The law wouldn't hurt them.
Again, you seem incredibly close-minded that all protesting at funerals has the goal of disrupting the services and harassing the mourners.
The government holds the power to say where and when you can protest on public property but they cannot prevent you from protesting. This was done due to possible conflicting events of protesters. so this means that Arizona is within there right to make such a law. Arizona can back this up by saying because conflict between groups might happen that would require law enforcement they can and should make this law.
As long as they are not on private property (in which the owner of the property doesn't allow it) there should be no reason to limit someone's speech.
Someone mentioned verbal assault. Verbal assault is insinuation of a crime (a crime that infringes on another). That is different from merely saying "your boy's going to hell". That doesn't insinuate a crime.
The constitution gaurantees freedom of speech. And anyone is free to speak. It however does not gaurantee where and in what manner you are free to speak. This is not a slippery slope, it is a common and understood condition of man, that we die, and upon death loved ones should be allowed the grief any human expects in similar circumsance regardless of your argument with that individual.
Yes, protesting at a funeral is very disrespectful and mean, but I still have the right to protest however I choose so long as I don't cause excessive disruption or trespass, ect.. Restricting rights based on respect is simply a gateway to more rights being take by the government. For example, in Australia media like videogames and pornography are being censored because it is considered, "disrespectful". I think that my freedom is way more important than respect.
1. The rights of friends and family to grieve supersedes the right of protest in this instance.
2. We're speaking of the right to protest, not to speak. They are still allowed to speak so you are defending the wrong right.
3. If one is protesting fire for instance there is Supreme Court affirmed precedence that you do not have the "right" to scream fire in a crowded theater. Law is based on precedence and has been for over 200 years so any slippery slope argument is null at this point.
4. In your Australia example, they misinterpreted the definition of "respect" mistaking an ideology's validity with the extent to which one who does not accept that ideology is free to practice in a way counter, and the extent to which your examples effect those with a specific ideology - ie, one can turn off porn, and one can not buy a video game. One cannot "turn off" the protests of lunatics at a funeral so it is two different circumstances.
Ironic example though. Born Again psychos pass a law limiting freedom in one nation, and you attempt to use it to expand the rights of Born Again psychos in another. Rarely do you see a true instance of irony in real life. Leave it to Christians to pull it off.
This is a very interesting question. Honestly I am very divided on this myself. I see valid points on both sides.
Technically the protesters can still say what they want to say, they are just limited to 'where' they can say it. Does the constitution grant us the right to express our free speech everywhere? Is a regulation of a Right, a violation of it? It is entirely possible to regulate a right to the extent that it is no longer feasible.
I really do loathe the Westboro Baptist Church (the church of bigots) and hate the Idea of them desecrating the memory of a dead loved one. Especially as someone who is in the armed forces, the WBC, an organization that has picketed the funerals of dead soldiers, soldiers who have sacrificed more than these bigots will ever comprehend. This may not even be a 'free-speech' issue, it could be a form of harassment, and thus wouldn't be protected by the first amendment anyway. I don't know all the intricacies of the law, and what is considered harassment and what isn't. If this isn't considered Harassment, it should be.
I also wanted to add, that if the WBC, were to chant their hate at the funeral of one of my comrades, I would have no qualms over showing one of them what pavement tastes like.
This may not even be a 'free-speech' issue, it could be a form of harassment, and thus wouldn't be protected by the first amendment anyway. I don't know all the intricacies of the law, and what is considered harassment and what isn't. If this isn't considered Harassment, it should be.
I agree. This is what I found on the legal definition of harassment.
There is capacity for it to be harassment. Protesting at a funeral does not have to be harassment however. The question is "Should protesters be allowed to protest at funerals?". It says nothing about what kind of protesting (like silent protesting). By voting no you assume that all forms of protesting, including silent ones, or even protesters protesting for the deceased.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It is important to honor the constitution, but where do we draw the line?
In the case of the WBC, our armed forces fight and die to defend their right to spew their hate. It's sad. I guess people should use the constitutional rights more responsibly.
I too, would have no hesitation in knocking out some of their teeth if they were at one of my buddy's funerals.
I think it is unacceptable for people to protest during funerals. While many may argue that is a constitutional right to freedom of speech, they are also forgetting that there is a difference between speech and place. Take for example that everyone has a constitutional right to freedom of speech but that does not give someone the authority or right to interrupt a criminal trial because they believe they can speak or do something that is part of their right, because then that will lead to contempt of court. Also, if we allow protestors to protest at funeral proceedings, what good does it serve when the person is already dead and if we allow protestors to protest during funeral proceedings, then the mourners will react with anger which can lead to violence creating the chances of another funeral arriving from that conflict.
I don't think they need to go be making laws banning that, that would infringe upon freedom of speech. It's just not the right thing to do no matter how much you disagree with the deceased. Have some respect for the families that are grieving.