Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Your Constitutional rights only exist to the extent that they do not infringe on someone else's rights.


WBC. Picketing funerals... my right to have a private ceremony. MY right to have quiet and peace around as I'm put in the ground. Spc Jaded Plunk's right to be respected for his service and sacrifice for our nation. WBC's right to disagree, to despise, and to spread their message.

Can't there be a line drawn when the person holding that sign that says, "DIE, SOLDIER! DIE!" All the while, screaming that we are going to hell, that we should all be burned alive, et cetera, due to the fact it infringes on MY (personal/human) rights to not be antagonized, not to be threatened, not to be provoked?


Freedom of speech. My right to take my children to the park, we pay taxes to fund it too. Your right to go to the park too.

Is there a place to draw the line where the toddler portion of the playground isn't filled with the sound of a mother cussing her child, threatening someone over the phone, then yelling curse words across the playground at the 4yo that it's time to go, so my 2 yr old is not only exposed to the cussing, but has the potential to repeat those words, and likely my child will be put through school with those children?


We choose to live in a quiet neighborhood, your choice to have a "bumpin' system" in your trunk.

Where is the line drawn that I no longer have to be woken up at 3am when you come strolling home, making it a point to drive -3mph so we can all hear your bass? So that my children are woken up, my elderly neighbor can't fall back asleep, and I get to listen to my ears ring and chest rattle for the next hour?

Rights were only intended to be exercised to the extent they did not infringe on another's rights.

Answer Question

Asked by matobe at 10:40 AM on Jun. 20, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 21 (10,174 Credits)
Answers (16)
  • That is true only to a certain extent. WBC's first amendment right to freedom of speech trumps your right to be offended by it. Everything has the capacity to offend someone. Who gets to decide which arguement wins? The bottom line is no one has the right to never be offended.

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 11:09 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • The issue is what if something you do makes someone mad should you stop? I don't recall anywhere in our constitution where we are protected from being offended. When my dad was laid to rest the WBC people were there he was a Marine. As we got to the cemetary they were outside the walls since the cemetary was privately owned and they were not allowed on the property. I had the limo stop and handed them donuts and told them I forgave them for being so hateful. I also reminded them they have the freedom to speak out thanks to brave men like my dad. Shirley Phelps Roper took the donuts and said thank you. They left minutes afterwards. They didn't offend me at all they made me feel bad for them must be hard to live with so much hate in their hearts. I was raised by my dad to forgive and move on.

    Who gets to decide what is offensive speech? Slippery slope what you are implying OP.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:24 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Where do we have a right to "peace and quiet," or a right to be not be "offended?"

    While I totally disagree with what some people say and do, they have every right to be offensive ... so far as I can tell, you only have a right to ignore them.

    And with that said, "Constitutional rights" is a misnomer ... the Constitution doesn't grant us anything that we don't already have. Our rights are inherent, they don't come from a piece of parchment.

    Answer by -Eilish- at 11:36 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Anon, you're a better soul than I am. If I had my druthers in dealing with Phelps and his defective offspring, I would pay small children to run with socks in through cow pies, and stuff those socks in the offending mouths. I might consider liberally applying duct tape to make sure the socks stay there long enough for the bacteria to cleanse the foulness. It's either that or I'd make sure the donuts contained enough laxatives to purge them (medieval ... but it is also appropriate).

    I don't consider what Phelps does as 'offensive'. I consider it as disturbing the peace and inciting people to violence, and if someone ever does snap because of them I would donate to their defense fund.

    I agree that free speech must be protected, but can't we resurrect common sense and decency?

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 11:43 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Thank you, farmlady.

    If Phelps and his crew were on cafemom, every time anyone mentioned what they stood for, and if they asked a "do you agree with..." question about their beliefs we would be quick to call a troll. Why should it be allowed in the REAL world if it isn't even acceptable for the most part in a cyber one?

    Comment by matobe (original poster) at 11:49 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • I agree with you matobe. ALL your examples are valid and all of those things bug me and make me so angry. They are all examples of impinging on others' rights.

    Answer by minnesotanice at 12:03 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • I'll bump ya because I really don't have anything to add ...

    Answer by tasches at 12:36 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Why should it be allowed in the REAL world if it isn't even acceptable for the most part in a cyber one?

    Comment by matobe (original poster) an hour ago

    This is a private website. By participating here you agree to abide by the rules which include no nastiness, even if you feel someone deserves it.

    Drawing lines on the COTUS is a slippery slope. Anyone is entitled to say anything they'd like to me and i'm entitled to agree or disagree. The more we allow ourselves to be nannied the more freedom we give up, which i find far more offensive than an irritating poster made by an ignorant, hateful bunch of asswipes.


    Answer by UpSheRises at 1:04 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Of course there is no legal way to put a muzzle on a group such as the Westboro Chuch and no way to stop a foul-mouthed Mom from blasting obscenities near kids in a playground and no way to prevent those loud bass tones or an extremely loud muffler on an ugly old huge truck.....but wouldn't it be great if people were civilized? Human beings are meant to be a little bit better than anmals.

    Answer by minnesotanice at 1:44 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • 1. yes, those foul mouthed WBC are entitled to protest, but, they are disturbing the peace and inciting violence. They are infringing on others rights as i see it. And if they make any threats, that is illegal. They are disgusting.

    2. the mother in your scenerio is verbally abusing her children, and cussing is still illegal in some states. it is in ours, and i would point that out.

    3. that 'bumpin' system may be breaking a noise control ordianance. I'm with you here, hate that.

    Now, other thand the first one, these are petty and the police have more pressing issues i'm sure. But if this is something that is regularly occuring, i would call and make a report about it each time. Continually creating a disturbance with your vehicle will land you some tickets. As far as the mom, pull out your phone, video her, and say "smile for the police" if she keeps it up. LOL, that might get her to quiet down some in publi

    Answer by boobarandbell at 2:09 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.