Bro. Randy #fundie

Bro. Randy #fundie teens-4-christ.org

[On fstdt quoting him and his members.]

We live in a nation that has a long history of protecting the rights of it's citizens. One of those rights is our freedom of speech. However, no right is an absolute right. Your right to freedom of speech ends when it infringes upon one of my rights.

94 comments

old comment by BurntBush

Face it Randy, you are just too fucking funny to leave alone. You spout off with the most outlandish crap many of us have ever seen on the web. I'm not sure how you think laughing at you has "infringed" on your rights though. We have just as much right to laugh and comment on you speech as you have to comment on ours. Although many of us feel that the possibility of your being a pedophile is great, until you fuck up and get caught, we defend your right to brainwash as many kids as you like. It's just sad that in order to turn them toward your belief system you feel you have to lie. Let just say that you are god's little ass clown and leave it at that.

old comment by John

Your right to freedom of speech ends when it infringes upon one of my rights.
Where freedom of speech ends in the US is pretty narrowly defined. You can't commit fraud or perjury, slander or libel someone, counsel someone to commit a crime or threaten them. You can't publish obscenity, disturb the peace or commit contempt of court. There are probably a few other things that are banned, but not many. All of the banned speech is itself pretty narrowly defined. For example, obscenity has to meet a three pronged test. For libel, the statement generally has to be false, the person should have known it was false, it has to have actually harmed someone, it has to have been stated as fact, rather than opinion, and it can't be a "fair comment" on a matter of public interest (even if it's a stupid comment).

old comment by Pix

Meanwhile, in the actual United States, Cantwell v. Connecticut gave Americans the right to malign other people's religions in public, as long as they don't use "fighting words" (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire) designed to provoke an immediate, violent reaction. Until someone devises a way to punch people over standard TCP/IP, there won't be many "fighting words" cases on the Internet.
Bro. Randy's technically correct that the First Amendment right to free speech isn't absolute. Where he's sorely mistaken, however, is in believing that making fun of his religion (and/or his charming expressions thereof) is unprotected speech. Sorry, dude: you can call Roman Catholics "cultists" and Muslims "murderers" all you want, and I can call IFBs "twits" if I like. And God bless America for that! (Oh, and the threat to sue for "emotional distress"? Adorable. Keep 'em coming, Bro!)

old comment by NotMe

"conspiracy to commit internet fraud"
Spamming Bro is internet fraud? Don't we have to make him pay us money for a bogus product/service first for it to be fraud? "theft of bandwidth" Sue Google, their crawlers are scanning the web regularly. You could also sue anyone who has ever visited your site. If you did not give them permission before the visit they re trespassing. By trespassing they unlawfully usd your bandwidth! And even if it flew, how much would you like for compensation? A whole dollar? You'll be able to keep your site up for another week if you've got a decent provider package. "all the porn stuff" The horror of seeing a nude body. I bet you advise the kids to shower in the dark to? "In additional to the federal criminal charges, a civil liability exists for any costs we incur, time lost, emotional distress and punitive damages." You can't sue someone for emotional distress if all they did was disagree with you! And sueing for time lost? Do you sue the public transport service if you happen to use it and they have 1 minute delay? Mrs Lace: "My 7 cents: God is good, god this, god that." Just how did that contribute anything?

old comment by JaredM

Nothing makes me laugh more than legal threats on the Internet.
Bro. Randy, do you know how difficult it would be just to identify a potential defendant and serve process upon him? Or make out a viable cause of action? The First Amendment is a red herring here because this situation has not one goddamn thing to do with government limitation on speech. We haven't engaged in a denial of service attack on your stupid little fundy fiefdom T4C, nor have we made any criminal threats. And as far as defamation is concerned, good luck proving colloquium and publication, dipshit. Seriously, Bro. Randy, you are a sad, pathetic, inconsequential boil on the ass of humanity.

old comment by Felis >:3

Rights are, usually, absolute.

But yes, they do end when they infringe on someone else's (You can't use Freedom of Speech to harass a family at a funeral, because that is an infringement on THEIR rights, Mr. Phelps).

But, taking the piss is not an infringement of your rights. It's called criticism, however childish and puerile it might be. It's a differing opinion.

Stop using the imaginary human right to 'not be offended' as an excuse to silence people. And to think that YOU have the nerve to criticise the 'left' for being politically correct, Randy.

Has anyone noticed this blatant hypocrisy before?

EDIT: @ Big On. You're right, what would you know about freedom? I mean it was only your country that gave America its freedom, after all...

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"We live in a nation that has a long history of protecting the rights of it's citizens. One of those rights is our freedom of speech. However, no right is an absolute right. Your right to freedom of speech ends when it infringes upon one of my rights."

Oh, I couldn't agree more. As no doubt you'll agree with ED - and their right to say what they do - here:

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Teens-4-christ

After all, you similarly have every right to take legal action against what they say about you. So why haven't you done so to date, I wonder...?!

image

Just your name alone raises a flag or three. And your site called 'Teens4Christ' in itself doesn't set off the 'creepy' alarms, neither. [/hyper-sarcasm]

...however I don't see anything in the 1st Amendment - or anywhere else in the US Constitution - about the right to be an alleged paedophile nonce. Just ask your pal-in-Christ David J. Stewart:

http://davidjstewartexposed.blogspot.com/

Methinks the fundie filthbag doth protest too much. Oh, and...:

image

Two words: Gary Glitter.

@Julian

"Did God plead the 5th? I refuse to exist upon the grounds that I may incriminate myself?"

The Billy Connolly film "The Man Who Sued God" springs to mind. I guess that's why fundies would shit bricks - certainly post-Kitzmiller vs. Dover - if there were a Reverse-Scopes Monkey Trial, in which fundie religions - and it's clergy - was on trial for it's very existence. Because when the prosecutor calls God to the witness stand, and he doesn't appear...! >:D

Bro. Randy #fundie teens-4-christ.org

94 comments

Confused?