The Westboro Baptist Church The Westboro Baptist Church is a very controversial group. Their public protests cause political and emotional turmoil, with people carrying signs such as “God hates fags” and “The best kind of soldier is a dead soldier”. The question is: should we or should we not limit the rights of the WBC to protest such hateful topics? Our Constitution says so, but some people say that in certain situations, there should be limitations. In “PREACHING HATE- STATES TRY TO LIMIT WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH” posted on blog.indexoncensorship.org on August 26, 2011, Sara Yasin explains how her thoughts on the Westboro Baptist Church were once against their first amendment rights, but eventually changed. First, she explains how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the WBC’s right to protest at fallen soldiers funerals. In addition, she explains that since the ruling, two states have already passed laws to limit the disruptive protests of the WBC. Next, she argues that Illinois’ senator Mark Rubio has problematic thinking when he stated that “I can’t imagine anyone being against it, at least no one in their right mind,” after he commented on the bill entitled, Let Them Rest In Peace Act. Yasin concludes with how past experiences don’t supersede everyone’s natural born right to freedom of speech. In “A look in retrospect & a final decision on the rights of the WBC” posted on edublogs.org on April 6, 2011, the author Milobird7 tells how he jumped to conclusions regarding the Westboro Baptist Church and their doings before he research them and realized their legal rights. First, he notes that many could call the case of the WBC a “sick paradox: the liberties and freedoms that our soldiers fight to protect are the same ones being abused by the WBC,” referring to soldier’s funerals. His first reason for understanding the rights that the WBC has is that if America prohibits the protesting of the Westboro Baptist Church, then America is “demonstrating to the rest of the world that its fundamental liberties are subject to exceptions,” even though he still considers the whole concept morally wrong. Second, he realizes that just because it hurts someone’s feelings, doesn’t mean it is against the law. Finally, he concludes that there is always more to a story than what is seen at first glance.
The practices of the Westboro Baptist Church are controversial, and writing about it is hard to do without putting personal biases into the content. Most articles about the Westboro Baptist Church are in favor of one side or the other. Logos is hard to achieve because there aren’t many statistics about the church. There are, however, laws that are put into place to protect the rights of similar organizations. “Preaching Hate” by Sara Yasin is a blog, but she regularly free lances on topics such as Muslims in America, Human Rights and Development. I chose her post because she seemed to know a great deal about what she was writing. She knew the laws that were in place for the WBC, which she personally experienced at North Carolina State University. While Yasin used logos to help get her point across, another blogger used pathos to achieve the same goal. “A look in retrospect...” by Milobird7 is filled with his personal feelings to help his readers understand the rights of the WBC. He notes that he doesn’t support the feelings regarding the WBC’s protests, but he would fight to the death for their right to voice their opinion. His clearly expressed emotion pulls the audience towards his view on the subject. Both of the articles aim for the same resolution. Whether the authors have personal experience with the group, or they simply looked beyond the cover, both authors push to tell the audience that all American’s first amendment rights must be upheld, even when it regards such a contentious topic. Both articles are blogs, which mostly contain personal opinions. “A look in retrospect…” embraces the idea of blogging more