I guess some "Freepers" do have some similarities with Phelps....

[Pushed To The Left]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1639466/posts

Many of the posters there (though not all) seem to support violence against gay people! Very disappointing to see, but it makes me that much more determined to help defeat the right wing!

[ruggerson]

1. Thanks for posting this

and anyone who "thanked" the Freepers in that other thread should be ashamed of themselves.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

2. Indeed.

I was kinda :wtf: about that thread.

This link proves your point.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. Really?

Painting with a rather broad brush, eh?

Well, if it works for you, that's fine. Phelps is the best argument I know for free speech, and your right to express yourself is kept safe by people like him.

You see, hateful speech needs the most protection of all, and, fortunately, you have it, via the First Amendment.

Gotta love that Constitution and all that due process and equal protection stuff, eh?

[ruggerson]

5. No my right to free speech

is kept safe by our elected officials and our armed forces.

Not by Fred Phelps.

And there is a big difference between THANKING Freeper scum and appreciating free speech.

[Catch22Dem]

6. I didn't think hate speech was protected

Am I wrong?

[manic expression]

8. IIRC, kind of

Here's something I know about: if someone says something that blatantly evokes an angry reaction, like a Nazi salute, it is possible for someone who acts against that expression to be not guilty of any wrong. It depends on the judge mostly, but it has happened.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. You're wrong

You're probably thinking of the newly-hatched "hate crimes" classification, an aberration (in my opinion) if ever there was one.

What you consider hate speech, I might not. I might consider it inoffensive.

See what a slippery slope we fall onto when we try to categorize or impute?

There is no such thing as "absolute" free speech, but, hateful speech - words with which we vehemently disagree (think Nazis marching in Skokie in the 1970s) - requires the most protection of all.

If we don't protect their speech, we cannot expect protection for ours.

[BR_Parkway]

11. I support Phelps free speech, and the Freepers - I want them to say it out

loud, very often and in front of as many cameras as possible!

The Freepers are no different in their hatred than Phelps clan, who is just a "not as prettied up version" of Falwell, Dobson, AFA and rest of the "We hate gays for money" industry. Hold up their "God hates Fags" signs, hold them up high. Let every citizen in this country see them and know exactly who they are and what they stand for. Keep on until every time some pundit on M$M mentions a "pro-family Christian group" that the branded image in everyone's mind is Fred and his band of lunatics.

Then let every citizen decide if he/she agrees with them or not.

One of the best things about not suppressing Free Speech - it lets everyone know exactly what the other guy really wants to say. These groups are all one and the same - some are just a little more polished about how they say it.

I've never been supportive of the "hate crimes" and "hate speech" laws. You are right, many times it's a matter of opinion. Some guy hates me cause I'm a fag? Oh well, someone else could hate me because of the car I drive, or that he thinks my ears are shaped funny. Having a special class in the law isn't going to stop it from happening, and that person is going to find some reason to lash out at others anyway.

And the person standing on the street corner hollering at me for being gay causes so much less problem in my life (because I make that choice, I'm not giving that power to them) than the pandering politician who is afraid to come out and say that fags and dykes are Americans too, and we don't treat any Americans differently, simply because some pollster told them a particular demographic needs to hear them say that as they pander for the votes, volunteers and fundraising.

I was very disappointed in the folks in the other thread who wanted to thank the freepers for protesting Phelps. Maybe they just haven't been paying attention.

[noonwitch]

12. I've never been big on the hate crimes laws either

I do support them in limited, specific instances.

With graffiti, for example-there is a big difference between painting a swastika on someone's garage from carving you and your girlfriend's names on a tree trunk. One is meant to intimidate, one is not. The hate crimes laws give the courts a way to give different penalties based on those differences in intent.

[BR_Parkway]

13. Painting on someone else's garage is already illegal, even if you painted

hearts and flowers.

It's an imperfect situation, but if it all came down to I'd do without any freedom of speech restrictions before I'd want the gov't to start imposing them, then adding more and more as time went on. Pretty soon they'd restrict something that I didn't find offensive.

[manic expression]

4. Not a surprise

unfortunately. They generally agree with Phelps when it comes to gays; they disagree when it comes to protesting soldiers' funerals. That's the only difference I see.

So, if Limbaugh criticizes O'Reilly for not supporting Bush enough, are we going to see a "thank you Limbaugh" thread, too? :eyes: :puke:

[katinmn]

7. Blech! I wish I wouldn't have looked!

What a bunch of hate-filled bastards!

[Skittles]

10. gee, freepers behaving like sick bastards

there's a shocker