Congress passes funeral protest ban., page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 26-5-2006 @ 12:53 PM by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by grimreaper797
Im against it because its illogical and suspicious. Im against it because neither is necessarily restricting free speech, but people are failing to see they are starting to make laws based on morals. When you do this certain people start to be discriminated against. You have to make laws based on the freedoms that people were garenteed as US citizens. We already have such laws, so why make these laws?

It is a slippery slope, not only because of a possible freedom of speech issue, but an issue of making laws based on morality rather then our countries freedoms and rights.

Grim....have you even read the law? <--- haven't used that in a while

What freedoms are being restricted?
Please tell me.


Also, remember back in the 50s and 60s. Of course you don't, as evidence by your mindset that this is the worse time in American history. Anyway, everyone was supposed to have the right to vote. Yet women and minorites couldn't, even though the law said they could. What did they do? They passed laws basically saying the same things, to make sure the laws already in place are carried out. How is this different? Not all states have laws already in place, with this being passed by Congress that means that every state now has to enforce that law and it trumps whatever state laws that were already in place. If a state law said they couldn't protest within 500 feet, well now they can at 300.

Also, if you're saying we already have these laws in place. Why weren't you pissed that those laws were passed? What's the difference between those laws and this one?


reply posted on 26-5-2006 @ 01:35 PM by zerotime
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People need to really read what grim and The Vagabond are saying here. If the Powers That Be really wanted to stop these protesters, there are already LAWS on the books to do that. If they would enforce the existing laws, this church could be fined, arrested, whatever.



These laws were not started by these mythical "Powers that Be," they were started by the families who had funerals protested.

There were no existing laws - that was the problem - you cannot throw a nuisance law against protesters because lets face it all protesters are a nuisance of some kind. If it was that easy there would be no protesting of any kind.

These groups hide behind two laws, the right to protest on public grounds which lets them stand in a cemetery and the right to religion which lets them say just about any horrible thing they want to say. They have been doing this for 10 years. They know the laws and so do the cities. If they would be arrested they would get a really nice court settlement from the city for having their right violated.

AGAIN, If these protesters want to tell us all how gay people are taking over the world or protest the war and the soldiers that is fine, they can do it on a downtown street or in front of the courthouse like everyone else. There is no need for them to be in a graveyard when a funeral is taking place. Protest laws are great because they allow Americans to voice their opinions in a constructive manner for the betterment of the community. These protesters are not protesting anything. These protesters are exploiting loopholes in the laws to personally attack grieving families.

They are not protesting. They are attacking grieving families and hiding behind the laws to do it.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by zerotime]



reply posted on 26-5-2006 @ 01:59 PM by grimreaper797
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Protesting at a funeral is both wrong and interferes with the funeral atendees liberties.


none of you are to determine what wrong and what isnt. You may not like that, but thats the plain truth. When it comes to morals, you dont decide whats right and what isnt. It does though interfere with the funeral atendees rights, which is why they should report a public disturbance.


No, because of your comments like
Im against it because its illogical and suspicious.

If you think something like this is illogical and suspicious, then you have problems....

And who said I was fighting you? I only responded to one of your posts...


Its illogical because there are already laws to stop disturbing the peace and such. Its suspicious because the lawmakers know this yet instead of coming down on the police for not enforcing it (if in fact such calls were made of disturbing the peace) they make a law that has to do with moral issues.


Why do you keep saying this?
That's not really the case. Even if it was, who cares!? As a human being there are certain things that should be frowned upon by everyone.


Thats your own opinion. None of you are to decide whats morally right or wrong. You are not one to say, nor is anyone. Thats too bad if you dont like that. This is a country based on freedoms, not morality. If we start basing our laws on morals what makes us any different then an islamic run government? They base their laws on morals too. Our own laws here are suppose to be based on "you can do whatever you like, so long as it doesnt interfere with other peoples rights to do the same"


What are you basing that on? Your own understanding or does it say that somewhere?

why else is the law being made? We already have laws that deal with disturbing the peace and such. Your taking a certain instance and making a law based on that certain instance. Your not making a law on it because its interfering with these peoples freedoms and rights. They would call the police if it was, and the police have the laws necessary to act on that call. So the only other reason to make it a law is because people believe it is wrong. Theres no other reason to make it a law. Theres already a law there to stop it. If the people dont call the police, thats their fault. If the police dont respond, crack down on the police. Dont make a law that deals with morality.


Again, like with the voting issue. People find loopholes and ways around those laws so other laws are made that are more specific.

this isn't the case. I cant blast my music through the neighborhood in the middle of the night claiming free speech, ill get slapped with disturbing the peace. I can try to fight it, but I will lose eventually because that law is there. The law is that you cannot infringe on other peoples rights, which they are doing. Plain and simple, freedom of speech does not override that.


reply posted on 26-5-2006 @ 02:11 PM by zerotime
Protesters operate, BY LAW, by a different set of rules than the general public.

Why don't you guys get that?

You guys keep saying "Disturbing the peace or Public Nuisance" but those laws do not governer protesters.

For God sakes Grim you posted the Rights to Deminstrate and Protest on page 2 of this thread. lol
www.nlg-la.org...

Q. Can my free speech rights be restricted because of what I want to say – even if it’s controversial?
A. No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of free speech activity in every circumstance. Police and government officials are
allowed to place certain non-discriminatory and narrowly drawn “time, place and manner” restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Q. Where can I engage in free speech activity?
A. Generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional “public forums” such as public sidewalks and parks. Public streets can be used for marches subject to reasonable permit conditions. In addition, speech activity may
be permitted at other public locations such as the plazas in front of government buildings which the government has opened up to similar speech activities.

Q. Do I have a right to picket on public sidewalks?
A. Yes. This is an activity for which a permit is not required. However, picketing must be done in an orderly, non-disruptive fashion so that pedestrians can pass by and entrances to buildings are not blocked. Contrary to the belief of some law enforcement officials, picketers are not required to keep moving, but may remain in one place as long as they leave room on the sidewalk for others to pass.

Q. Can a speaker be silenced for provoking a crowd?
A. Generally, no. Even the most inflammatory speaker cannot be punished for merely arousing the audience. A speaker can be arrested and convicted for incitement only if he or she specifically advocates violence or illegal actions and only if those illegalities are imminently likely to occur.

Q. Do counter-demonstrators have free speech rights?
A. Yes. Although counter-demonstrators should not be allowed to physically disrupt the event they are protesting, they do have the right to be present and to voice their views. Police are permitted to keep two antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within the general vicinity of one
another.

Q. Is heckling protected by the First Amendment?
A. Although the law is not settled, heckling should be protected, unless hecklers are attempting to physically disrupt an event, or unless they are drowning out the other speakers.

Q. Does it matter if other speech activities have taken place at the same location in the past?
A. Yes. The government cannot discriminate against activists because of the controversial content of their message. Thus, if you can show that events similar
to yours have been permitted in the past (such as a Veterans or Memorial Day parade), then the denial of your permit application is an indication that the government is involved in selective enforcement.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 2 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 15 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 2 days ago with 68 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 12 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 7 days ago with 33 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 69 replies
Official Maine Caucus Results Thread!!
  2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 60 replies