Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

Con, I operated within the definition of rebut, so I developed my arguement just fine. And the claim to privacy is the main reason why the WBC is being charged, I do not feel the need to offer up the right that Mr. Snyder has the right to privacy, for that has been established already. To continue asserting the point like you keep asserting yours, without much further evidence and without refuting the rebut, is illogical. To claim that a rebut is a new arguement is illogical. And how in the f*** is the UK arguement irrelevant? It goes with domestic tranquility! They endanger this contry's relations! You offered up other cases in which pertained to free speech as evidence, and yet you claim my case isn't because it is in relation to my point? You are a hypocrite! They protest at a funeral and rob the family of their right to privacy. That is my evidence, you nit-wit. Refute that they did not rob their right to privacy by stating Mr. Snyder's son will burn in hell, that they did not hijack this private moment and cause the procession to be rerouted. Tell me that they did not have any negative effect on this funeral, BUT WITH EVIDENCE! And acknowledge my own evidence! They negatively impacted this private moment, of which the family had a right to. This is not an emotional case! This is a right infringement case, and I don't give a f*** about emotions (aside from the ones I'm having towards you)! They robbed Mr. Snyder's right to privacy! I gave you AMENDMENT IX and X to prove it but you WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT BECAUSE YOU"RE A DOO-DOO HEAD! Like I said, F*** your emotions and look to see that WBC robbed and hijacked a private moment and denied the rights of others because they wished to monopolize all other rights under the basis that Amendment I is the supreme right that can infringe others. They think that they can do what they want and say what they want to others and target audiences that are emotionally distraugh and corrupt them with their spewings of hate, you said they were hate, and deteriorate the good relations between our people and place decadence on our relations with Britain! I don't give a flying Sphagetti Monster that you're disgusted with what they say. Your opinion doesn't matter in this debate or to me, the point is what they said impeded and robbed another right! So their right should be revoked because they MOLEST AND ABUSE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! That's exactly what Amendment IX is for, ar-tard, because we can't list all rights in the Constiution so it is inferred and universally recognized that the right to privacy is included in it, and THAT IS MY F***ING ARGUEMENT! I spend a lot of time and work on these debates and people like you **** it up with technicalities and refusing to address arguements because your own suck eggs! They whole point of them being in the Supreme Court is because it is federally recognized that they have a right to privacy! " The sole remaining question is whether WBC's speech was protected in the real world under the First Amendment." NO YOU IDIOT! They are taking over other rights by doing this! Don't say the right to privacy is not a right, because the Supreme Court has already recognized it as the "right to privacy being an [unalienable] right."!! That's why this made it to the Supreme Court! You imbicile! I do not wish to silence those I disagree with, but it is admissable to say "Screw your rights" if they endanger the country! (On an irrelevant note, this is what the government needs to do with "enhanced interrogation") And don't bother using Mr. King as a source, because African Americans had rights, but they weren't protected to the government. He didn't spark racism, he sought to abolish it through peace. Racism was already there. The WBC does not need protected when they are the ones screwing up everyone elses rights. Don't play coy with me, buffoon! Martin Luther King and the Civil War (based so blacks could have equal rights) is SOLELY ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS!! How in the living f*** can you have equal rights if the WBC takes away your rights because they think that Amendment I has the power to take away other rights, such as to privacy? Mr. King and the Civil War was about equal rights, not declaring one right supreme! "The question is not whether you agree with what was said (no s***), the question is did they have the right to say it." The right exists, but the right does not exist to impede other rights. They needed to go somewhere else or do it at another time so that Mr. Snyder could grieve, but they chose to take away his right to grieve, so they should pay the price. You stated, "My opponent has failed in 4 rounds to answer my basic contentions that free speech is essential to a free society and that free speech protects unpopular speech. These must be judged to be clearly conceded as true." DID YOU FU*KING READ MY ARGUEMENTS?! 1. (round 2) "The matter of unpopularity is not the issue. You said yourself that these statements made by them are "evil, repugnant, and...hate(ful)". Therein, my friend, lies the issue." 2. (round 3) "The right to speech is not key to preservation of a society. They key is "domestic tranquility". 3. (round 3) I stated, in ordinary cases, the right to freedom of speech is essential, undeniable, and irrefutable. However, I have proven, and it stands proven on the Supreme Court floor, that this is NOT an ordinary case. 4. (round 4) The government protects unpopular speech, but the government does not allow and will not stand by as verbal assault tactics are enacted under the claim of free speech to pass boarders of rights so that they infringe upon each other with unrestrained tyrannical intent to monopolize all rights on the basis that one right has the supremecy to overlap another! This land and all it's rights are equal and it should not be admissable that these perpitraters endanger the saftey of others with hate words and steal rights away from others! How can you say I have not addressed this? You refuse to read, clearly! So your arguements, all of them are the same and inserted with mechanical repetativeness that I refute, but you ignore! And don't patronize the audience with Amendment I of the Constiution like you so pretend to know it! You refuse to address my arguements and use, like WBC, that just because you have Amendment I that you can do as you please and deny others their Constiutional rights! CON HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO READ!! ====VOTE PRO=====