The right to freedom of speech...?

[sp1814]

Members of the fundamentalist ultra-right wing Westboro Baptist Church, will attempt to fly into the country on Friday to picket a play called The Laramie Project.

The play, by Moises Kaufman, centres on the murder of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old University of Wyoming student who was killed in a homophobic attack in 1998.

The WBC are famous for picketing funerals of gay men who have died of AIDS, and even turned up to Matthew Shepherd's funeral, shouting "No fags in heaven" (must've been pleasant to his family).

Question - is there a point at which the blanket acceptance of free speech makes people feel uneasy?

Or should we simply say, "Free speech is free speech and if you don't like what's being said, tough"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief /2009/feb/18/religion-christianity-westboro

[Kromovaracun]

I thought they'd already been barred from entry?

Or should we simply say, "Free speech is free speech and if you don't like what's being said, tough"?

Personally, this is my sentiment. I don't believe personal upset or offence - no matter how drastic - to be the government's problem.

[Kromovaracun]

The only link I can find that says they've been banned is this link, but it's from the Sun so it's very possibly untrue.

[jake-the-peg]

Freespeech has it's limits.

If what is being intended is likely to cause a significant breech of the peace authorities can't just sit by.

Given Westboro's history I think that's very possible

[naomi24]

I agree with Krom. I seem to have said this several times recently, but I'll say it again. We can legislate to silence people, but we can never stop them thinking their own thoughts, and therein lies the real problem. Let them speak and face the barrage of objection and common sense argument they'll no doubt encounter when they do. We have to confront issues. Suppressing a problem and pretending it doesn't exist serves only to keep it simmering on the back burner. It doesn't educate people, and hence, produces no genuine progress.

[Quinlad]

And again, I think we're roundly agreed on that.

Jake has a point as well though.

[sp1814]

There was a (brilliant) documentary on CH4 about the WBC on CH4 last year. They protest all over the States, and frankly, I'm amazed none of them have been attacked.

They bring their kids to protest too.

Nothing as beautiful as watching a six year old scream, "When a fag dies, God laughs".

!!!

[naomi24]

That makes my blood run cold, SP. If we need an example of child abuse, that has to be somewhere near the top of the list.

[Oneeyedvic]

Krom, how would you like it if I could just follow you around whereever I wanted and shout behind you "Krom is a paedo".

I am going to keep shouting this at you, and not rational argument is going to stop me.

Do you think I should be able to? Free speech and all?

How about if you are on a plane and someone shouts " I have a bomb" - should he be charged?

So what that a few people are scared to death? It's all a laugh and I have the right to say what I want regardless!

[Octavius]

They are morally repellent.

But the media love them, it�s a great story. They can point the finger at these idiots and reclaim the moral high-ground, and that�s all that counts.

[Gromit]

I would let them in. I don't like what they do, but to ban them is an attack on Freedom of Speech. However, Freedom of Speech must be upheld, but every citizen (and visitor from another country) must also obey the law of the land.

Just like Tottenham football hooligans can be prosecuted for homophobic chants at Sol Campbell, then the WTC can also be arrested if they shout in homophobic abuse in public. Unfortunately, that would generate them lots of publicity, which is probably their aim.

I can understand why the Government want to nip all of this in the bud by barring them, but unfortunately, I think they should be allowed in.

[Kromovaracun]

Krom, how would you like it if I could just follow you around whereever I wanted and shout behind you "Krom is a paedo".

I'm not sure the analogy's apt: that's not a case of expression, that's continuous harassment and I'd likely be quite intimidated.

If you were to see me randomly in the street and shout that I'm a paedo then I don't think it's the govt's job to prohibit you. Ditto for the plane scenario. It might be unpleasant, but the government really isn't responsible for ironing out all unpleasance. That's society's problem, and there's only so much the state can do in that sector.

[Kromovaracun]

There was a (brilliant) documentary on CH4 about the WBC on CH4 last year.

Was that the Louis Theroux one? If so I agree it was terrific.

Incidentally, if anyone really feels like losing their job, you can sing along to a WBC christmas carol here (WARNING: Pretty nasty)

[sp1814]

I can see both sides of the argument.

I mean, there are views that I assume the majority of people would find abhorrent, but how do you balance freedom of speech against people's freedom to live their lives without harrassment.

If my child died of AIDS and I found a group of protesters outside the church, I would think, "Blimey...can't someone move them on at the very least???"

Actually, I'd think something else, but you get the picture.

[sp1814]

Kromovaracun

You're right. I was Louis Theroux. I somehow got it mixed up in my head and thought it was a Cutting Edge documentary.

The WBC...very odd family. Not as odd as the Jacksons or Osmonds, but certainly up there with The Nolans.

[jake-the-peg]

Look you have a right to free speech

You don't have a right to free speechWhen and where you want it

You can think what you like and say what you like (providing it's not libelous etc.)

You don't have a right to stand up in a synagogue and start banging on about the third Reich.

Now if this bunch wanted to come to Hyde Park corner and start mouthing off I'm sure they'd be more than welcome.

BUT their past behaviour has been ...er ..confrontational?

They cannot be relied on not to cause a breech of the peace and so they have been (or should be) denied entry

[Oneeyedvic]

SP1814 You're right. I was Louis Theroux. - so who are you now?

[Oneeyedvic]

If you were to see me randomly in the street and shout that I'm a paedo then I don't think it's the govt's job to prohibit you. Ditto for the plane scenario. It might be unpleasant, but the government really isn't responsible for ironing out all unpleasance. That's society's problem, and there's only so much the state can do in that sector.

Yes it is the governments job - there are rules which we all have to abide by - otherwise we have chaos and anarchy.

It is a crime to shout out that you have a bomb on a plane, it is illegal to harass someone and it is illegal to discriminate against people due to their sexual preference.

Being in this country is also not a right but a privilege If you are not a citizen of this country - if you want to enter this country then you must agree to abide by the laws. And if the government does not believe that you will act within the law, then it is perfectly at liberty to not grant you permission to enter.

Whilst it may be argued that this is a thought crime, I don't believe it is in a similar way that the state must intervene in cases where people have mental health issues and are potentially a danger to themselves or others - the state intervenes before something happens rather than after.

[obNOXious]

Free speech has to be upheld above and ahead of anything else, it is the single most vital thing in our entire society in my humble opinion. that being said, although i think they should let them in and let them picjet or whatever they want to do, i also think that the whole weight of the law should be brought to bear upon them if they behave in a way that contravenes it.
As an aside, despite my waffling about free freech etc as above, if they attended my child's funeral and behaved in the absolutely disgraceful way that they do, then there would be no question that I'd rip them to shreds with my bare hands, so I can see the Govt's problem with worries about breaches of the peace.

[Gromit]

There are laws about harrassment and defamation. Freedom of Speech is a right, but you have to make sure you obey other laws as well when you are using that right.

In this case, there is an expectation that they might break other laws, or that public order offenses might be committed. However, anticipation of behaviour should not be reason enough from barring them from the country. They should be allowed in, and if they then do not follow our laws, they should be dealt with accordingly.

[ludwig]

I agree with Vic and Jake on this, for the reasons they've already stated. There comes a point where obnoxious people have to be prevented from doing obnoxious things, before they get a chance to do them.

Obviously the question of who defines which people are obnoxious and which actions are obnoxious enough to warrant prevention are not easy ones, but hey, life's not easy is it. We're having to make similar ethical judgements on a whole variety of subjects all the time, and this is just another one.