Congress Passes Bill That Will In Part Limit Westboro Baptist’s Protesting Abilities

Email this to a friend

Nice Move

Freedom of speech is a great thing. If I lived in a country without free speech I would have long ago died from exhaustion in a labor camp. And I wouldn’t have even been sent there for making some grand political statement, I’d be there for telling a dick joke to the wrong person.

It is truly wonderful to have freedom of speech, and I’m really not for making exceptions, except in the very most extreme of circumstances, like say protesting harassing a military funeral because you think that a soldier’s death is part of God’s punishment for Americans supporting the rights of gay people. Aside from the fact that these protests are founded on a base of logic that’s about as sturdy as a treehouse built by an alcoholic father, did you not see Chick-fil-A yesterday, Fred Phelps?

The Westboro Baptist Church has long hidden behind the First Amendment, which is their right, but now Congress has made that slightly more difficult.

According to “The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012,” which is now headed to President Barack Obama’s desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service. The bill also requires protestors to be at least 300 feet away from grieving family members.

Basically Westboro Baptist is still allowed to get their message out, but their ability to shove said message in the face of new widows and recently sonless mothers has been limited. What a shame.

The real tragedy here is that we might see less of the Westboro counter-protests like the recent demonstrations at Texas A&M, Columbia MO, and the zombie protest. I was sort of hoping these would get even more creative. Please, if Westboro Baptist comes to your neck of the woods to spread their crazy, don’t hesitate to form a counter-protest. My ideal Westboro counter-protest would involve a lot of booze, several well concealed water balloon launcher teams, a gay Jesus flash mob and posters with Fred Phelps photoshopped into the Lemon Party (to confuse the children), and incessant prank phone calling to whatever Motel 6 the protesters are staying at the night before (pay off the front desk, it won’t be hard).

Hopefully the counter-protests continue. Because although this bill will help limit what that “church” can do, it won’t stop them from showing up.



You must be logged in to comment. Log in or create an account.

  1. 3
    Frat Seizure_1890

    Alright, I hate the living FUCK out of Westboro Baptist, but i’m not sure I agree with passing a law that is completely specific to one small group of people

    ^ ThisTake a lapLog in or sign up to reply. • 4 years ago
  2. 3
    Sir Blumpkin

    There was a tornado that destroyed half of a town near my home town. These fuckers said that God sent it for the corruption in Chicago, even though the part of Illinois affected by the tornado was more that five hours away from Chicago. Yeah I bet they would be really happy if we burnt down their church and homes and then yelled at them as they grieved after losing everything they hold dear in their pathetic lives, which I’m almost positive is only that church.

    ^ ThisTake a lapLog in or sign up to reply. • 4 years ago
  3. -1

    Hearing the name of the United States Marine Corps Camp Lejeune being used to take down the Westboro Baptist church brings a tear to my eye for all the sailors and marines that have served in our military at that base. Having stayed at French Creek myself I am Blessed to hear of this law. God Bless the USA. ‘MERICA!

    ^ ThisTake a lapLog in or sign up to reply. • 4 years ago
  4. -2

    I always get uneasy when laws come out regarding the Bill of Rights…regardless of how much I hate those whom the law is aimed.

    ^ ThisTake a lapLog in or sign up to reply. • 4 years ago
    • 3
      Will Fratchamp

      I agree with the Doc on this one. The 1st Amendment is meant to protect all forms of speech, speech that we like and speech that we don’t like. If we start criminalizing the speech we don’t like, we’re giving the government power to decide what can and cannot be said. I don’t like people who falsely impersonate a military hero, but the Stolen Valor Act (as pointed out by FratEN) would have set dangerous precedent for allowing the government to criminalize false statements.

      Ask yourself, why should I have to give up my 1st amendment rights because of the actions of a bunch of idiots?

      ^ ThisTake a lapLog in or sign up to reply. • 4 years ago
    • 0
      Charleston FratEN

      Some laws limiting “free speech” are necessary when they define the free speech.

      Telling grieving family members that God hates their dead son is wrong.

      Claiming to have received a medal of honor is also wrong, both are “free speech” that should be limited, with nobody normal being affected by the new law.

      ^ ThisTake a lapLog in or sign up to reply. • 4 years ago
    • -1

      I agree that doing certain things with free speech are ‘wrong’ from a moral standpoint at least. However, we do things that are wrong all the time! That doesn’t mean they should be illegal. Getting blackout drunk and riding the tricycle may be wrong, but should we make them illegal? Similarly with most drugs. Abusing them is probably wrong, and though I prefer alcohol and nicotine personally, I still think drugs should be legal.

      ^ ThisTake a lapLog in or sign up to reply. • 4 years ago
    • -3
      the fratness monster

      When morons radically abuse the first amendment by attacking the very people that fought to defend their right to do so, it just makes since to limit freedom of speech for some people.

      ^ ThisTake a lapLog in or sign up to reply. • 4 years ago