Westboro will protest 2 NBA games

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/westboro-baptist-church-protest-two-playoff-games-because-161904717.html

 

In something that is news to us, apparently God hates the NBA. This seems pretty far-fetched, because in spite of a recent spate of injuries, some sort of Almighty Power has bestowed us with a fantastically entertaining postseason thus far, and a wonderfully sunny spring day for me to sit under while I write about the NBA all day.

 

According to a press release from the Westboro Baptist Church, though, God does hate the NBA. And this edict is so significant that the church has announced plans to picket at both Wednesday’s Game 5 between the Oklahoma City Thunder and Houston Rockets, and Thursday’s Game 6 between the Chicago Bulls and Brooklyn Nets. Apparently the Big Man Upstairs, according to the Westboro Baptist Church, is really ticked off at Oklahoma City star Kevin Durant for wagging his fist at the sky before telling reporters that if a free agent veteran center was “happy, that’s cool with me.”

 

The free agent center in question is former Washington Wizards big man Jason Collins, who became the first active member of the four major pro sports leagues to announce that he was gay on Monday. So, by the Westboro Baptist Church’s unquestionable logic, this now means God hates the NBA.

 

Well, it’s been a good run, NBA.

 

I’m guessing God was particularly happy with a few highlights over the last 65 years – rumors abound that the Almighty was a keen fan of Dick Motta’s offense, the 2004-05 Phoenix Suns, Wes Unseld’s outlet passes, those old Denver Nugget uniforms and the San Antonio Spurs’ coyote – but this relationship is apparently over, according the minds at the Westboro Baptist Church. I’m mostly fearful that God couldn’t have waited out Derrick Rose’s return, because that doesn’t speak well for this mortal’s potential to stay patient.

 

And that’s a huge bummer. I’m covering Thursday’s Bulls/Nets game in person, and I’m wondering if it’s still safe to drive to the game. Could the blade of a windmill unhinge, the work of a hateful and vengeful God, as I muse out loud about Chicago’s screen and roll defense on my way past the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm? I’ve read some things, man. God is not the sort of presence that you want to cross.

 

So why oh why did the Brooklyn Nets have to go and say these terrible things about their former starting center in the wake of his announcement?

 

Brook Lopez: “It is an honor for me to call Jason Collins a friend. I admire his dignity as well as his courage to come out. I'll always have his back.”

 

Joe Johnson: “Jason Collins was one of the best teammates I've ever had. I respect his tremendous courage to come out and will always support him.”

 

Billy King: “Jason Collins was a vital member of the New Jersey Nets for six and a half years, and as an executive with a competing NBA team, I always respected the standard he set for team play and the example he set for the league in playing with integrity and purpose. He exemplifies everything we look for in players, and for those players and associates within our organization, our primary focus is creating the most accepting and respectful environment for everyone to succeed.”

 

Blasphemy, according to the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

If anyone from this fringe, completely-unaffiliated-with-99.9 percent-of-all-Christian-sects, fundamentalist “church” is reading, let me know how the league can get back on the Almighty’s good side. Personally, I’d start with asking Him to give Kevin Durant a second look. He created something pretty special with that guy.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

Hahaha, I was hoping they'd come to Memphis. They'd get mugged and killed before they reached the stadium.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Hahaha, I was hoping they'd come to Memphis. They'd get mugged and killed before they reached the stadium.

 

Funny story about them recently. They came to West, TX to protest the memorial service of those killed in the fertilizer plant explosion. On their trip they woke up to every tire on their cars slashed and not a single tire shop in town would fix it. Later, the sheriff had every one of them that showed up to the memorial arrested. He couldn't charge them with anything, but he's legally allowed to put them in jail UNTIL he decided he can't charge them. So they couldn't protest the memorial. Fucking greatness.

[Bucman 891]

Funny story about them recently. They came to West, TX to protest the memorial service of those killed in the fertilizer plant explosion. On their trip they woke up to every tire on their cars slashed and not a single tire shop in town would fix it. Later, the sheriff had every one of them that showed up to the memorial arrested. He couldn't charge them with anything, but he's legally allowed to put them in jail UNTIL he decided he can't charge them. So they couldn't protest the memorial. Fucking greatness.

Texas justice is pretty awesome.

Can't wait to one of these fuckers dies, everyone in America should protest it.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Or party it up there.

 

Incidentally, I read the title as "Westbrook," and I'm very disappointed that Russel Westbrook won't be holding a protest outside of OKC games.

Edited May 1, 2013 by blotsfan

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I have often said that the bill of rights should not apply to everyone. The second does not, why should the first ? People should not be able to do this legally, just shows once again how fucked up our system is when they are legally allowed to do this.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

THat gets to be way too complicated. Where do you draw the line then? Do make special exemptions for some groups or people but not others? We can't allow the law to be so subjective -- or more so than it is already anyway.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I have often said that the bill of rights should not apply to everyone. The second does not, why should the first ? People should not be able to do this legally, just shows once again how fucked up our system is when they are legally allowed to do this.

Because talking at someone doesn't kill them.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Because talking at someone doesn't kill them.

 

So ? What does that have to do with anything ? You should be able to do anything short of killing someone ? What point were you trying to make ?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

THat gets to be way too complicated. Where do you draw the line then? Do make special exemptions for some groups or people but not others? We can't allow the law to be so subjective -- or more so than it is already anyway.

 

Call me crazy but common sense would not be a bad place to start. We already restrict freedoms, why not this one ?

[blotsfan 2,112]

So ? What does that have to do with anything ? You should be able to do anything short of killing someone ? What point were you trying to make ?

 

Thats why there are restrictions to owning guns, but not what you say (unless it puts people in danger, in which case there already are).

Edited May 1, 2013 by blotsfan

[blotsfan 2,112]

Call me crazy but common sense would not be a bad place to start. We already restrict freedoms, why not this one ?

You can't get much more subjective than that.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You can't get much more subjective than that.

 

Only to those who lack it. Common sense says protesting funerals of soldiers is something that nobody should be in support of or be allowed to do. Protesting any funeral should be prohibited. At least that is what common sense tells me, but again I guess those who lack it dont see that.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Who defines common sense then? I'm sure if you were to make a list of everything you thought was "common sense" I would disagree with a lot of those things, and same the other way around.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Who defines common sense then? I'm sure if you were to make a list of everything you thought was "common sense" I would disagree with a lot of those things, and same the other way around.

 

You dont have to define everything or break it all down into stuff like this, just general stupid shit. If you are going to do shit like that there should be someone who should after law school or really ten years of life should be able to make the call. Like people who sit on those town hall boards, governor's and so on.

 

Is yelling fire in a theater bad ? Yes. Common Sense.

Is protesting Funerals acceptable behavior ? No. Common Sense.

Is holding a sign saying you are going to execute the president on national TV a good idea ? No. Common Sense.

Is it right to yell slurs outside of abortion clinics ? No. Common Sense.

 

If you need shit like that explained to you, you dont have common sense. Plain and simple.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well, as long as you'd trust everyone in charge forever to have that sort of authority.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Well, as long as you'd trust everyone in charge forever to have that sort of authority.

 

Did you read my first post ? I said this is part of why our country is so fucked up is because people allow this shit. As in the people who are currently in charge. Lol, I am now done, this just got stupid.

[NaTaS+ 958]

Hahaha, I was hoping they'd come to Memphis. They'd get mugged and killed before they reached the stadium.

 

I figured in Memphis they'd get raped by some hillbillies and taken into the mountains.

[NaTaS+ 958]

The best way to deal with the WBC is to completely ignore them. As soon as they jump, everyone moves. Media coverage and outrage is exactly what they want. It's like the forum troll that everyone keeps feeding.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I have often said that the bill of rights should not apply to everyone. The second does not, why should the first ? People should not be able to do this legally, just shows once again how fucked up our system is when they are legally allowed to do this.

 

We don't agree much but this is definitely a case where we do. What Westboro does is not considered "high value" speech. For that reason I see no reason why we can't stop the shit they're doing. Fact of the matter is, words hurt. Maybe not physically, but there's a very real emotional and psychological consequence to words. If speech is hurtful and does not contribute to society in meaningful ways (and Westboro doesn't) then fuck 'em. Shut em up.

 

The notion that restricting their speech creates some kind of dangerous precedent or slippery slope is absurd. The right to free speech is not a license to say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want. Justice Sanford articulated this point beautifully in writing the majority opinion in Whitney v California.

 

The freedom of speech which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license giving immunity to every possible use of language and preventing the punishment of those who abuse their freedom; and that a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare,...disturb the public peace,...is not open to question.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well if you wanna look at Supreme Court precedents:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Well if you wanna look at Supreme Court precedents:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

 

Have you read the opinion though? They upheld the ruling in favor of Phelps but only on a bunch of technicalities. Here's the meat of it:

 

The record makes clear that the applicable legal term--"emotional distress"--fails to capture fully the anguish Westboro's choice added to Mr Snyder's already incalculable grief. but Westboro conducted its picketing peacefully on matters of public concern at a public place adjacent to a public street. Such space occupies a "special position in terms of First Amendment protection." United States v. Grace, 461 US 171, 180 (1983).

 

That said, "[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times. Id., at 479 (quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund Inc., 473 US 788, 799 (1985)). Westboro's choice of where and when to conduct its picketing is not beyond the Government's regulatory reach--it is "subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions" that are consistent with the standards announced in this Court's precedents. Clark v Community for Creative Non-Violence, 486 US 288, 293 (1984).

 

In other words, Phelps wins the case but it's OK to regulate Westboro's speech through legislation.

[blotsfan 2,112]

As long as they don't get too close to the funerals, which I'm pretty sure they already make sure to do that

[Omerta+ 1,206]

As long as they don't get too close to the funerals, which I'm pretty sure they already make sure to do that

 

That is disgusting.

[blotsfan 2,112]

That I support the right to free speech? Call me disgusting then.