Does no one see that WBC is the good guy in this story?
One way to say what I think you're saying without us insulting each other is to agree that debate and argument is feasible only if all participants are within the same "school of thought" or "religion". Communication in any form requires much commonality (language, world view, values, mores), and vigorous intellectual debate depends exceptionally heavily on what is shared.
Let us agree that we will debate nothing here, but only listen to each other. I will do that so that you might be edified and so that I might learn something.
Let's explore what you and I (and others here) have in common. My goal as an activist is to promote liberty and justice and economic empowerment for every human being on the planet. Liberty, justice, and empowerment are my core values. Do you also embrace those ideals / values?
An "activist"?
No, you're being an apologist for Westboro. The case you cite above has the Phelps family kept an 'almost-respectable' distance from the funeral procession, and that puts the Supreme Court in a position where they did not have much choice in their ruling.
That does not make what they do any more-acceptable.
The only thing that can be admired from outside the US looking in, is that there has not been dramatic physical violence against the Phelps for their , ... 'fucktardery'. They are a hate group, clothed in old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ.
Thank you for reading Snyder v. Phelps (2011).
>> An "activist"? No, you're being an apologist for Westboro.
This is just more name calling. It is disrespectful and distracting.
>> That does not make what they do any more-acceptable.
What makes it acceptable is that this is a contest between those who would speak and those who would silence them. In the U.S., more than in any other country in the world, it is recognized in law, if not by the general population, that the freedom to speak and for all to hear what would be spoken is the freedom upon which our entire system of liberty, justice, and self government is built. It is this logic that compels us, in the U.S., to say to those mourners, "Be strong. Stand strong. You, like us, must tolerate this speech, because speech cannot be silenced."
> They are a hate group
That is debatable. Even if it is true, it is irrelevant. In the U.S., speech that is motivated by hate is fully protected, as it should be. Creating a "hate speech" exclusion would have the practical effect of gutting the First Amendment of much of its protection of controversial speech.
Saying one is in favor of justice is saying nothing. Saying one is in favor of promoting justice is saying so nearly nothing that the difference is of little interest.
People with open minds can discuss issues with people of other schools of thought. The thing is, not all schools of thought cooperate. Some schools of thought are what one might call 'closed meme-sets', an interlocking net of ideas that ensnare their host (the person in whose mind the memes have entrenched themselves) by guiding their thinking into directions that will not dislodge the meme-set. Religions do this. So-called 'cult' religions are notorious for it (though one might say a religion is a cult with social respectability). Modern US extreme right-wing ideology has managed it too; while before the election liberals suspected conservatives of knowingly making up fake "facts", after the election it became apparent that conservatives had been unknowingly making up fake "facts".
Throughout history, some very intelligent people have been ensnared by closed meme-sets; it's that difficult to escape once one is caught. So I don't necessarily hold it against an individual that they have been ensnared.
The fight for liberty and for justice is real for me. I am essentially under house arrest. The two year anniversary of my imprisonment is coming up on Jan. 14. I am a political prisoner in the United States. I am imprisoned because I am a speaker of unpopular ideas that threaten significant local economic interests. There is nothing abstract about my personal fight for liberty, and in particular the freedom to speak. I have announced to government that I intend to organize a lawful revolt and that I have chosen Mountain View, California to be the "viral insertion point".
Your intelligent post pleases me, but I think that you overestimate the ability of any human being to escape the "school of thought" effect. In particular, your insinuation that I am ensnared but that you are not makes me chuckle.
Pi zero, don't weasel out of my question. Do you stand for liberty? In particular, do you stand for the freedom to speak? If you say, "no", I will not debate it. I just want to identify our common ground so that we can build a friendship upon it.