http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm

Now if only they could be banned from America...

Clear irony in their criticism of the British for not being "tolerant and accepting"... :/

Good

We should've let them in, then set them on fire a bit.

The whole "ban hate speech" thing about Europe bothers me more.

Wait .. I don't get it.
He is anti-gay .. but protested a play about killing a gay?
Wouldn't he be down with that?

It bothers everyone apart from Daily Mail readers, Doom-Mongers and Professional Turd-Polishers.

The play probably sympathizes with the gay, portraying the event as a tragedy. (Which it is) Not cheering for the dead homosexual.

Banning him and his daughter was a good thing, they are complete lunatics.

That's assuming the production is casting the moment in a negative light. If I recall, the The Laramie Project is about tolerance.

It's that old "free speech until it impinges on someone else's freedom" argument.

I absolutely think everyone should have the right to say whatever they like, but not in a forum where people can't avoid the diatribe if they're doing something they want to do or need to do. If you can't get away from it, they are committing harrassment.

Good example - banning those nutters from funerals - somewhere that you can't leave and get out of their way because you need to be there.

Bad example - banning them from shouting on the street. If you don't like what they have to say, walk round them and get out of earshot. You aren't forced to listen.

Murkier example - banning them from shouting on a busy shopping street where people can't avoid them. (say you need to go to your bank etc.)

Yeah, but can you really justify banning someone from an entire country because you don't like what they have to say?

I don't really know what I think about this, except that this church is obviously full of douches.

The WBC gives Christianity a bad reputation.

Fix'd

Right, all Christians are intolerant of everyone who isn't a fundamentalist.

A few years ago WBC came up to Canada to burn our flag. The RCMP let them protest, but they cordoned off the area and wouldn't let anybody near enough to the protest to witness it.

All they want is attention. Banning them just gives them more media time. Also, given that the WBC has a couple of multi-million dollar judgments they have yet to pay I'm surprised they're willing to spend the money on plane tickets in the first place.

Edit: "There are members of WBC that are not named Phelps," she added.

Yeah, they're named Phelps-Roper. They all live in one compound and some guy from the BBC had a look around a couple of years back. Inbreeding, adultery and Shirley Phelps-Roper's firstborn son was born when she was an unwed teenager. Oh goodness the sin.

Oh, and in case anybody didn't know this: Fred Phelps is a disbarred attorney. Another man from the same class and caliber as Jack Thompson. Even lawyers think he's a tool.

No, just the WBC/Mormons/Jehovas/Catholics.

Britain is going down the crapper.

That dutch anti-islam guy who wasn't allowed in, now this it's totally against free speech. Why the hell aren't they allowed to come in? Unless it can be shown they're going to do something which puts people in danger (e.g. planting a bomb to get the attention they want) I don't see why people should be banned from the country for expressing (albeit crazy) beliefs.

The same goes for the dutch politician a few weeks ago, holocaust deniers.

Yeah man, it's totally against free speech.

The free speech which they are entitled to under the United States Constitution.

The United States Constitution which entitles them the right to go to other countries and whine about what they're doing wrong.

Because they're citizens of the United States.

And not citizens of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth.

That's why they have free speech.

Hey if you aren't going to kill these people the least you can do is keep them inside your own country.

Don't you see, if they do get let in then the people who don't like them will have to plant a bomb to get the attention they want, and there's a lot more of them!

So the government is stopping people coming in for their own safety? Surely this is a call for the person themselves to make, not the government. Sure, the government should advise people not to enter the country if they think they are in danger, but shouldn't the final decision be up to the individual?

No

I don't think "they might get mad and bomb us" is a good reason to not bar someone from entering a country

No, I'm pretty sure they weren't actually banned from the country for their own safety.

I'm pretty sure it's not even because of their message. Sure, they're spreading a bad message. A message which no Briton wants to hear. A message coming from a group of people who are not affected by what they're angry about and shouldn't be concerned by what they're angry about and live on the opposite side of the planet from it. But that's not why.

I'm pretty sure they were banned because they spread their bad message in a bad way. A terrible, hostile, spiteful, attention-seeking way that insults entire nations, races, cultures, good Christians and offends the sensibilities of all who bear witness to their performances. They protest, attack and defame people who have absolutely no connection to the cause they're protesting against. Worse still, they offend the very concept of freedom of speech by offering the perfect example of why free speech is a bad idea.

No no no. These are truly, genuinely bad people and their cruelty and wretchedness goes far deeper than being simply anti-gay. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if there were even a remote chance that some brave Brit would butcher Phelps and his entire family there'd be at least one person in the UK government arguing that they should be allowed to exercise said free speech.

Why do you think we sent them there? If YOU'RE not going to kill them the least you could do is pass them on instead of sending them back!

I'll do it.

Yorkshiremen never get convicted!