Hateful Protesting, freedom of speech?

While I'm against the war overall, I fully support this measure. These hate-mongering religious zealots have absolutely no right to pull their disrespectful bullshit at any funerals, much less military funerals.

I'm all for freedom of speech, within reason, but there are certain limits that need to be in place. I'm glad this law was passed to stop some of the insanity. Now if only we can pass laws banning "hate speech" protests in public (basically any white power type bullshit), I'll be a happy camper.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Watts

When limitations are placed upon a right (in this case a fundamental right ) it becomes a privilege. This is why the ACLU will defend these rabid protesters, and it also explains why in the past the ACLU has defended the speech rights of white-power types. To make sure that the intentions of this bill are not the very same limitations you're proposing. They're fighting for expansions of our rights. But scratching the surface of a liberal and finding a authoritarian is pretty common eh?

I don't see how it's authoritarian to want to ban hate group rallies in public places. I'm not saying we should make all racist speech illegal by itself, I'm just saying we should ban them from rallying in public. It's harmful to society as a whole.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't like gay pride parades either. We don't have heterosexual pride parades, so the opposite is really just ignorant in my estimation.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Watts

So you just step on their freedom to assembly peacefully instead of freedom of speech? You cannot cede that much authority to the government. Rarely, if ever is it ever returned. Once it's an accepted legal precedant, it no longer matters why certain groups are not allowed to assemble. The government now has the power to ban any gatherings it pleases. For example; anti-war gatherings.

(Yeah, I know those white power gatherings usually aren't peaceful. But it typically isn't the white power types that start the violence. It's the morons stupid enough to allow themselves to be goaded by those dipshits.)

Hmmm . . . I think we're actually sorta on the same side, just debating two different points.

I am generally for a ban on any specific organized hate speech (i.e. white power, any racist stuff, any anti-gay stuff, etc.), but I don't believe it should be allowed to open the door for a wholesale ban on other things (i.e. anti-war protests, etc.) . . . I'm thinking that the point you're trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the original intention doesn't matter because the first opening will just encourage the government to abuse the power and push it further; the basic "give an inch, take a mile" type of thing . . . Am I correct?

If that is the case, then I think we're probably (unfortunately) in agreement (because my idea, while I do believe it would be for the best, probably isn't realistic due to corruption). What does that speak of this country, though, that we know such a thing would occur? Does give a very good impression of the United States government, sadly . . .

Re: Fred Phelps . . . Holy shit that guy is as much of a sociopath as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell! The funny thing is, if God does exist and is as benevolent and good as portrayed, then people like me are far more likely to get into Heaven than guys like him are. What irony!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

It actually doesn't say anything about the U.S. government specifically, since the phenomenon Watts speaks of isn't unique to the U.S. government. Accumulation and expansion of power are things governments do naturally.

Oh, I understand that. Thing is, the United States is supposed to be "better" than that. Such abuse of power make us no better than the tyrants we fight, really.

Originally Posted by Alterminded

True that it may get shot down for its breeches on the first amendment, but if you look at it with a totally different perspective, so does the patriot act. I have a funny feeling should this go to the Supreme Court and get overturned by them as unconstitutional, the patriot act might be next up on the list. (Here is hoping, but not much into it...)

I'm not so sure. In this case, we have two Amendments duking it out, the 1st and the 4th. The Amendment order was just the order of [ratification], not the order of importance, so it's really a matter of which one the judges find more threatened.

Are the 4th Amendment rights of the family more threatened by the protesters being allowed full reign, or is the 1st Amendment rights of these ignorant dumbasses more threatened by the law?

I think the law will stand, if only because the protesters are only being being given organization limits. They're still being allowed to say what they want, just not at the funeral to which they weren't invited. Funerals are more or less sacred and a time of mourning for families, so I think the courts will sympathize and rule in favor of the 4th Amendment in this case, especially this particular USSC.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

I don't see how protecting the rights we have in place would be a slippery slope. Most would argue that the slippery slope is to do the opposite.

Except in this case we have, as I said, two "rights" butting heads, the right to free speech and the right to privacy. If this law doesn't go through, the next act of Congress will be to pass a federal law making funerals a completely private invitation-only event, which will have the same effect.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

I'm not saying that they're not liars until something illegal is done, I'm saying that since there hasn't been any sort of criminal activity, why not just let them have the benefit of the doubt? But I'm not saying you can't be judgmental, I'm saying you shouldn't be. I just think you should tolerate others in case, sometime down the line, the roles are reversed.

Why should we give the benefit of the doubt to people who, by their very words and actions, and showing themselves to be untrustworthy and despicable? They're a bunch of total tools and have an extreme bias that is completely irrational.

As for roles getting reversed, if people like that ever got into power so that the roles could be reversed, I'd be moving to the UK or Canada. Those people are against everything that America is supposed to be about. They're basically un-American.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

Yes, I see how easy that is. It would have been better for getting that point across, but tolerance is what I'm emphasizing. The first amendment freedoms have some ugly sides like this and KKK rallies and all that stuff, but we should and do tolerate it because of the good sides it has.

What good are groups like that for? What good comes from allowing them to do that? All I can see is that allowing it prevents the government from becoming overly corrupt, a problem that shouldn't exist to begin with.

In an ideal world, we could ban that kind of crap without the fear of the government going too far. Too bad it's not realistic.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Holy shit . . . That Shirley Phelps-Roper is so fucking retarded she needs to be fired out of a cannon into the core of the sun! That Julie Banderas rocks the way she totally pwned that bitch! People like that really piss me off and almost push me to the point of wanting to lash out in a very violent way . . .

This is why I would ban hate speech, by the way. Too bad it would lead to abuses from the government . . . I guess that's why an ideal world is just a fantasy, eh? Unfortunately, we're forced to put up with raving lunatics like her. I would never worship a God that condemns people for things that are not usually a choice (i.e. homosexuality) . . . What kind of loving deity would that be, anyway?

Julie Banderas: 1
Hannity & Colmes: 1
Retarded Bigots: 0

Hahaha!

EDIT: Congratulations to Iowa for banning the funeral protests outright!

I was speaking idiomatically.