I don't think they encourage people to kill soldiers -- they just say they are glad that people do. It's the worst kind of hate speech and it's unthinking blind malevolence, but I don't think I agree that it's treason. And as odious as they are, yeah, how do you stop them without infringing on free speech? The best solution I've heard of involves bikers though.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:53 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the "aid and comfort" bit is bullshit, personally. Material >> support is another matter. When I see people talking secession from >> the union, I recognize that as an attack on the state. However, I >> think it should be protected speech. > > "Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381. Treason > > Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against > them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within > the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer > death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under > this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of > holding any office under the United States." > > While WBC is not directly providing money to nor verbally attesting > support for those fighting against US (and other) forces, they do > consistently and constantly make the following statements: > > "Thank God for IED's", "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" > > These are not, in my opinion, statements of political dissent. They > are, rather, statements that embolden our enemies by asserting that > they have the support of at least some in the US. This, though not > purposeful, is the result of their campaign. They are encouraging the > enemy and therefore fall within the "aid and comfort" clause. > >> Westboro is the worst kind of odious. But the silencing of dissent in >> all its forms is exactly what they want to see happen. We must let >> people freely express themselves while bonding together to deny them >> the influence that they seek. > > There are plenty of ways that people express dissent against the > government. Those generally have some alternative answer to the > current situation (regardless of who is in power). WBC's statements > provide neither a direct antagonist nor an acceptable solution. > Instead they rail against the general culture in America. > > It comes down to discerning what is truly free speech and what is not. > For me, WBC's right to "freedom of expression" ends when they begin > encouraging enemies to kill our soldiers. That is where you and I > personally differ on the issue. > > Hatto > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:313235 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
