Hateful Protesting, freedom of speech?

Source

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under Legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House Wednesday.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said he took up the issue after attending a military funeral in his home state, where mourners were greeted by "chants and taunting and some of the most vile things I have ever heard."

"Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace," Rogers said Wednesday before the Hosue vote.

The demonstrators are led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan., who has previously organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard.

In an interview when the House bill passed, Phelps said Congress was "blatantly violating the First Amendment" rights to free speech in passing the bill. He said that if the bill becomes law he will continue to demonstrate but would abide by the restrictions.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said the loved ones of those who die have already sacrificed for the nation and "we must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus."

In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcyle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions.

More than a dozen states are considering similar laws to restrict protests at nonfederal cemeteries. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a new Kentucky law, saying it goes too far in limiting freedom of speech and expression.

Personally speaking I am not against this measure. It doesn't limit their right to protest or say what ever they want, it just limits how close they can get to a military funeral while protesting.

Here is another artical on it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

About fucking time someone dealt with those unfortunately vocal and active wackos mentioned in the story. I saw a Fox News interview with one of the 11-person church's hag-like women.

"Your son died in Iraq because God purposely let him die. Why? Oh because some other Americans don't follow the bible so now God wants American to burn. Abraham and rivers of fire and bullshit bullshit."

There is no way this is an unreasonable obstruction to 1st A rights.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

So they think Jesus would approve of harrassing the families of fallen soldiers because the United states somehow approves of homosexuality?
I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where Jesus told his disciples to harass Roman soldiers or their families because Rome was a pagan nation. These people obviously have never heard of the golden rule. I think keeping them away from these soldiers funerals will actually go a long way in keeping them from being injured or assaulted.

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

The fact that there are people protesting like that at, of all things, a funeral or memorial service, is in my opinion completely outrageous to begin with.

If my brother in Iraq was killed on duty (knock on wood), and there were people like this at his funeral among the mourners, I'd be furious. I'd be tempted to tell the officers to use live ammunition, and then aim the cannon and the gun salute at the protesters. Ahem. [/rant]

But really, in agreement with Gumby, this legislation does not take away their freedom of speech per se. It's merely saying they can't get within a certain distance. No soldier's family deserves that kind of crap at the funeral. To say that protests of that nature are rude is an understatement. Why can't the people protesting instead, for example, go and be with their families like the people at the funeral are trying to?

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

It's an absolutely disgusting practice, but I'm against this sort of regulation. I agree that there should be some distance between the protestors and mourners, but only to a point where they can't physically disrupt the funeral.

I was speaking idiomatically.

There's a far easier way. Instead of taking away rights to protest, just start deeming all fundamentalist religious groups terrorists and revoke their rights. Because I'm sure we all agree here the problem is the wackos themselves, not the noise they're making.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

It's an absolutely disgusting practice, but I'm against this sort of regulation. I agree that there should be some distance between the protestors and mourners, but only to a point where they can't physically disrupt the funeral.

It's not like they wouldn't be able to find some place nearby where they would get some degree of attention. "Camp Casey" was three miles from Bush's ranch, and we all know how much attention that got.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Wesker

So they think Jesus would approve of harrassing the families of fallen soldiers because the United states somehow approves of homosexuality?

You are asking whether the Westboro Baptist Church is seriously insane. The answer is yes. Yes they are.

Unfortunately half of them are also lawyers, and tenacious fucks at that. The measure is unconstitutional in the same way that murdering pedophiles when they're not kiddie-touching is unconstitutional. Making this law was a bad idea, and it will not end well.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Josiah

It's not like they wouldn't be able to find some place nearby where they would get some degree of attention. "Camp Casey" was three miles from Bush's ranch, and we all know how much attention that got.

They're not pushing for this act to quell the media attention, they're doing it to allow mourners to carry out a funeral/memorial service in peace. I don't ever recall Sheehan stopping Bush's motorcade en route to the ranch.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a lurker

You are asking whether the Westboro Baptist Church is seriously insane. The answer is yes. Yes they are.

Unfortunately half of them are also lawyers, and tenacious fucks at that. The measure is unconstitutional in the same way that murdering pedophiles when they're not kiddie-touching is unconstitutional. Making this law was a bad idea, and it will not end well.

That may be true, but these people are doing something that makes flag burning look like a Sunday walk through the park. They can pull what ever legal crap they want, I do not think the American people will not tolerate it.

The worst part about this is the fact that they actually had to make a law that you couldn't protest with in a certain distance of a military funeral. Some of the signs that they had were so awful that I can't understand how those who had to see it remained peaceful. Those people are fucking insane and to inflict that upon a griefing family is just wrong.

How ya doing, buddy?

What do they mean by America is tolerating homosexuals, anyway? I'm always hearing about people getting beaten and killed simply due to the suspicion that they're homosexual. We don't allow samesex marriage and anything other than the missionary position is still illegal in many states.

Do they want America to start jailing and executing homosexuals? Where is their God's supposed love in that?

Maybe we should let the wackjobs have their way and change the nomenclature of this continent to Middle East II.

Dark ages comin liek wut.

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

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

What do they mean by America is tolerating homosexuals, anyway? I'm always hearing about people getting beaten and killed simply due to the suspicion that they're homosexual. We don't allow samesex marriage and anything other than the missionary position is still illegal in many states.

Do they want America to start jailing and executing homosexuals? Where is their God's supposed love in that?

Maybe we should let the wackjobs have their way and change the nomenclature of this continent to Middle East II.

Dark ages comin liek wut.

Where the fuck did that come from? I think you seriously fucking need to re-read what I wrote. I was referring to the fucking insane protesters and their utter hate for everything that they don’t agree with them... not homosexuals O_o

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

They're not pushing for this act to quell the media attention, they're doing it to allow mourners to carry out a funeral/memorial service in peace. I don't ever recall Sheehan stopping Bush's motorcade en route to the ranch.

I know, I'm just saying that the protestors don't have to be right there at the funeral to use their freedom of speech and still get their message across.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

It's hard for me not to loose my temper when it comes to people so shameless and stupid, so I'll just say thank goodness they made that law and my only dissapointment is that it doesn't carry a far harsher punishment. The right to free speech is very important, but so is the right to just bloody be buried or mourn in peace without some whackjob lunatics turning it into some hate-filled propaganda.
How dare anyone even give a reason to make such a law. Tolerance toward gays isn't America's problem, people like that are the problem.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Where the fuck did that come from? I think you seriously fucking need to re-read what I wrote. I was referring to the fucking insane protesters and their utter hate for everything that they don’t agree with them... not homosexuals O_o

Weren't they protesting against tolerance of homosexuals?

I'm obviously not the only one with a skewed sense of logical predication. Soldiers dying in a war = God's hate of homosexuals! Sounds completely logical to me.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I fail to see how this has anything to do with freedom of speech. This is just a measure to protect the privacy of military families. Perhaps prevent an eventual violent outburst from either parties involved. The reason why the ACLU filed it's case in favor of the protesters is to make sure this point is clarified legally.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

I don't know how you can be for the freedom of speech if you want the government to limit people's ability to say whatever comes into their mind. Shouldn't you be fighting for expansions of your rights and not the limitations of pre-existing rights?

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?

Who knows, maybe they'll ban any speech; written or verbal that has any sense of an anti-governmental policy tone next. Oops! Too late. It's happened in the past, and they haven't gotten around to enforcing the Patriot Act yet. I think I talked about the legality of seditious libel in another thread awhile back.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Weren't they protesting against tolerance of homosexuals?

I'm obviously not the only one with a skewed sense of logical predication. Soldiers dying in a war = God's hate of homosexuals! Sounds completely logical to me.

I'll clarify it a bit here. They were protesting that America's tolerance for homosexuals was being punished by god, and that punishment was the death of our soldiers. The leader of this group was on MSNBC, and sounded pretty crazy. He would not stop talking and they had to cut his mic...

Fun stuff.

As for the law, I can't say I care too much really (although I do hope this law doesn't have any unexpected 'loopholes'). These people can say what they want, they just won't be close enough to dance on the soldiers graves' while they do it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Watts

I fail to see how this has anything to do with freedom of speech. This is just a measure to protect the privacy of military families. Perhaps prevent an eventual violent outburst from either parties involved. The reason why the ACLU filed it's case in favor of the protesters is to make sure this point is clarified legally.

The thing I don't like is the regulation of what time they're allowed to gather. I'm not familiar with laws regarding protests, but is there that sort of limitation on other protests?

"Okay, you can't protest in front of this Planned Parenthood from an hour before it opens to an hour after it closes."

I'm not saying that there's a real correlation between the two, but the idea is to reach those who you feel are your target audience. The Westboro Baptist Church believes that God is killing American soldiers in Iraq because He hates gays, so the friends and families of these soldiers are their target.

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

Why don't they protest infront of military recruiter offices, then? Tell people that God's going to kill them when they sign up because they're protecting gays.

Probably because it wouldn't get them a tenth of the publicity that protesting at a soldier's funeral does.

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

Yeah, and there's not much wrong with that. They're so few that they're using the media attention as a crutch, so it's no one's fault but the press.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

The thing I don't like is the regulation of what time they're allowed to gather. I'm not familiar with laws regarding protests, but is there that sort of limitation on other protests?

Good question. I don't really know. Usually when you have large scale protests you have to file a permit with the city. Which tells you where you can protest and until x time. I think this is a precedant in the manner though. Since it's an out-right ban. So a judicial ruling is required. Still isn't a freedom of speech issue. Now we're into the clarification of other parts of the first amendment.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.)

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Watts

(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.)

Well yeah, they might as well scream "Hit me so I can sue you!" Similarly, the KKK once held a rally in my town about 6 years ago. The town's solution? We held a "unity rally" on the other side of town at the same time as the KKK's rally, and the town rally got a pretty good turnout. I don't remember there being any report of violence. Certainly distance (a mile or so in this case) was a major factor in that, which is why I'm not against this legislation. The KKK still had their rally, they said their peace, and we didn't have to hear (or read) a word of it, unless we actually chose to ourselves.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Watts

Still isn't a freedom of speech issue. Now we're into the clarification of other parts of the first amendment.

I'm not entirely sure. By regulating time and place in this way, the government is preventing protestors from reaching their target audience. It'd be like protesting high gas prices and being ordered away from all gas stations and oil company offices-- at least until everyone's gone home. Their right to protest is still there, but it's hindering their ability to give an actual message.

I wasn't sure how to articulate that properly, so I hope I'm explaining this clearly.

Jam it back in, in the dark.