Russel Brand V. Westboro

[bubby]

Love him or hate him, he always manages to bring forth excellent points.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/this-is-what-happens-when-russell-brand-interviews-westboro-baptist-church-leaders/

[Neysha]

Love him or hate him, he always manages to bring forth excellent points.

One of the Westboro guys or Russell Brand?

:P

[Shjade]

Ah yes, I remember that interview. It was a good one.

I'm a little disappointed he didn't get into the law-parsing possibilities with them - things like not wearing clothes woven of two materials and other really nitpicky things - and then asking them what their clothes were made of that evening. I guess it would've been a little too technical to keep the interview funny.

[TheGlyphstone]

Can someone quote/highlight the funny bits to preserve the ears and IQ of the rest of us from having to actually listen to the WBC people? I know it will be hard on you, but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make.

[Shjade]

They really aren't that bad in this. Compared to WBC's usual appearances, I mean.

[TheGlyphstone]

Being skinned alive with a sharp spoon is also not so bad compared to being skinned alive with a dull spoon. ;D

[Haloriel]

This is hilarious.  "Bloody hell.  It's like a really tricky quiz of hate." - Brand.

As ridiculous as the Westboro folks are, this is worth watching.

[Shjade]

That's a pretty good one, as was the observation that if Gandhi's going to hell we're all screwed.

Also: "Cigarette?"

[Blythe]

Can someone quote/highlight the funny bits to preserve the ears and IQ of the rest of us from having to actually listen to the WBC people? I know it will be hard on you, but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Actually, while the WBC bits are pretty awful (as to be expected)...I enjoyed some of the more serious points Russell Brand made. This question he asked the WBC guys was my favorite:

"Have you considered that the Bible, like all religious doctrine, may be allegorical and symbolic, to direct us towards one holy entity of love, as opposed to a specific litigious text to direct the behavior of human beings?"

The video is definitely worth a watch.

[Vanity Evolved]

I found it a bit silly; pointing out to the Westboro Baptist church that their beliefs are hateful and bigoted is like telling the public 'Man, Hitler sure was a meanie, huh?'

I guess after how tremendously the guy showed himself up for his idiotic opinions on how politics work, he wanted something a little easier to redeem himself in the eyes of the media.

[Haloriel]

It might have been mean of me, but I was worried Brand's use of 'litigious' was too hard for them to follow.  -whistles innocently-

[Ivory11]

wow the westboros are still a thing?

people need to stop paying attention to them, they're attention whores, plain and simple.

as the song says on the simpsons when the advertisements were killing everyone, "Just don't look, just don't look"
If you stop paying attention to them, they'll just receed to being some small compound that is completely disconnected from the outside world.

[Iniquitous]

It might have been mean of me, but I was worried Brand's use of 'litigious' was too hard for them to follow.  -whistles innocently-

Considering that several of them represent the whole "church" in court, the word wouldnt be hard for them to follow. They aren't as stupid as people would like to think they are. They know the law and exactly how to use it in their favor.

[Hemingway]

"You will all get a chance to speak ... IN HELL!"

Ahhhh, I broke down laughing. I'm going to watch the rest now, because at least it's very honest, and interesting.

[Valthazar]

Considering that several of them represent the whole "church" in court, the word wouldnt be hard for them to follow. They aren't as stupid as people would like to think they are. They know the law and exactly how to use it in their favor.

I agree.  The Westboro Baptist Church spews hate, but they are smart business people.

Right now, they don't have to pay any taxes, since they claim to be a non-profit church.  In 2007, a jury required them to pay $11 million dollars to a fallen marine's father after one of their protests at a funeral.  I don't know what ended up happening ultimately, but I know forensic accountants were hired to contest the claim that Shirley Phelps only had $300 to her name, and that their entire church and its three leaders only had a net worth of $1 million.

"Lawyers for the Marine's father countered that church members lied in their financial statements submitted to the court. The church's balance sheets will now take center stage as the judge decides how much, if any, of the award Westboro should pay."
http://www.culteducation.com/reference/westboro/westboro59.html
(Originally from Baltimore Sun in 2007)

So yeah, I am not a fan of WBC like everyone else in this thread, but Brand inviting them for an interview is just feeding their very strange, confusing, and (in my opinion) morally unethical business practice.

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree.  The Westboro Baptist Church spews hate, but they are smart business people.

Right now, they don't have to pay any taxes, since they claim to be a non-profit church.  In 2007, a jury required them to pay $11 million dollars to a fallen marine's father after one of their protests at a funeral.  I don't know what ended up happening ultimately, but I know forensic accountants were hired to contest the claim that Shirley Phelps only had $300 to her name, and that their entire church and its three leaders only had a net worth of $1 million.

"Lawyers for the Marine's father countered that church members lied in their financial statements submitted to the court. The church's balance sheets will now take center stage as the judge decides how much, if any, of the award Westboro should pay."
http://www.culteducation.com/reference/westboro/westboro59.html
(Originally from Baltimore Sun in 2007)

So yeah, I am not a fan of WBC like everyone else in this thread, but Brand inviting them for an interview is just feeding their very strange, confusing, and (in my opinion) morally unethical business practice.

If I recall correctly the church countersued the man and like most of their suits they won and stock him with MASSIVE legal fees (They represent themselves). All told they stuck him for 16 grand in court costs after his settlements were set aside. (Many folks donated to help him pay it off)

[Neysha]

Talk about unintended consequences when it came to that law about paying for both sides legal fees if you lose a lawsuit.

I'm assuming that is what happened in that case right?

[Lux12]

This kind of makes me want to wave cigarettes around them because they say  they hate fags. :P

In all seriousness though... It seems so strange that they would cling so heavily to that one passage and yet totally ignore others such the rule about not wearing clothes made of more than one kind o fabric together and not mixing meat and dairy together.

[Jazra]

Amazing interview. Very impressed with Russell Brand.

[IStateYourName]

This kind of makes me want to wave cigarettes around them because they say  they hate fags. :P

I managed to keep from spraying soda all over my keyboard.  Barely.

[Ryo242]

A fun watch... But this brings up a discussion question I wanted to ask due to someone talking with me about this earlier that groups like these shouldn't be allowed to exist any more.

"Do you think hate groups (Westboro Baptist Church, KKK, Neo Nazism) should be allowed to exist?"

I think they should.  Now before people start freaking out, I'd like to clarify this.  Groups should be allowed to exist, but they should never be allowed to take freedoms away from others.  They can be loud, say whatever they want, picket whatever, be obnoxious and rude, and even congregate and talk about how they all hate this, or like this... but if they physically step in, break laws, and enforce their thoughts to hurt and take away from others... That is what I do not condone and despise.

I cannot think I am better than these people for believing different ideas, or even for being of the majority of people who think that they spout nonsense.  I cannot "enforce" my beliefs on people I deem different because I dislike their beliefs.

"To silence one freedom is to silence all."

So yeah, was dwelling on this for most of the day and wanted to hear what other people thought since there's already this established Controversial Topic Thread created.

[TheGlyphstone]

I think I reluctantly have to agree with you.

On one level, it's a matter of free speech being free speech, and not wanting to open the door to suppression of such in a 'they came for the communists...' fashion.

On another level, I think there is validity in the argument that giving these people a place to vent in public creates a safety valve of such. Banning their groups and forbidding them to air their hate in public won't make them any less hateful, but it would force them to find other venues to express their hatred, which could include action instead of words against their targets and thus raise the incidence of actual hate crimes.

On a third level....if they're all gathered in once place together, that at least fractionally increases the odds of a freak accident wiping them out simultaneously. ;D

[Shjade]

Of course they should exist.

If they didn't, what could we point to when people ask "What's hate speech?" so we can say "That," eh?

[Valthazar]

They should definitely exist.

In many countries in Europe, a lot of things can be censored as a result of hate speech laws.  For example, in France, there's a political party called the National Front, which is very anti-immigration, and anti-Islam.  Last year, one of the leaders of their group, Marine Le Pen, spoke out against the increased prevalence of burqas and other signs of Muslim observance in France, and there has been a strong motion to file charges prosecuting her for hate speech.

Whether or not we agree with her, she is entitled to her vision for France.  This is the very big perk of living the US.

[Kythia]

They should definitely exist.

In many countries in Europe, a lot of things can be censored as a result of hate speech laws.  For example, in France, there's a political party called the National Front, which is very anti-immigration, and anti-Islam.  Last year, one of the leaders of their group, Marine Le Pen, spoke out against the increased prevalence of burqas and other signs of Muslim observance in France, and there has been a strong motion to file charges prosecuting her for hate speech.

Whether or not we agree with her, she is entitled to her vision for France.  This is the very big perk of living the US.

I'm sorry, what is your argument there?  That that is definitely the right way of doing it, countries that don't do it that way are wrong and that's just the way it is?  Simply saying "This is a benefit of living in the US and other countries don't have that benefit" isn't an argument.  You need to show that it is a benefit and that the people of France, who haven't shown any interest in having a right to free speech as a people, are wrong/misguided to not have.