It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge: State ban on protests at military funerals unconstitutional

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I am 100% in favor of the judge's decision.

The soldiers went and died for the freedoms we have, why the hell should their death be in VAIN by banning freedom of speech?

Hypocrisy is a bad thing.

And no one has the right to put Phelps in his place with VIOLENCE or RESTRICTING HIS FREEDOM.

This is a video proving how angry the masses are at Freedom of Speech when they disagree with it. It's sick and UN-AMERICAN.



The only people breaking the law are those using violence rather than civil discourse or debate.

Also you have a right to ignore folks you disagree with.

But NO ONE has a right to use VIOLENCE against people they disagree with.

This country is screwed 100% if people cannot get this through their heads.

If you can ban Westboro Church's freedom of speech, you can ban mine. And you can ban everyone else's as well.

Why is the Constitution being burnt to a crisp? Because the Majority is the ones doing the trampling.

The Constitution was designed to tell the government how to PROTECT our LIBERTY.

I don't care if you disagree with them I really don't thats your right. But harming them? You should rot in prison.




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
the only reason Missouri passed the law in the first place was because this guy and his church was disrupting private funeral services.

And a few of us Missourians didn't take to kindly to this asshat and his followers disrespecting the grieving families.

A few heated words between him and his followers and those that can't stand his "right" to be disrespectful turned to a few punches and some of his followers ending up in the emergency room. Missouri passed the law to keep him and his followers from getting killed just as much as they passed it to protect the grieving families.

I'm not saying he and his followers don't have a right to their own opinion and they even have the right to protest the funerals if they want. BUT they should do it quietly and not be disrespectful to the families that have lost a loved one.

Personally I hope this guy and his followers make a trip back to the town i live in. it'll be the last time he opens his mouth in public to protest a funeral again not many people around here are worried about what will happen to them if he mysteriously took a wrong turn down the wrong street on his way to protest another funeral



[edit on 8/16/2010 by Mercenary2007]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


As Lucidity alluded, there are laws protecting funeral processions... But there is also technology, i.e. bullhorns, that can circumvent those laws. How much are you willing to give up because of an extremely small group's actions?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by misinformational
 


Indeed this is true. Unfortunately there is not much to do about it, as the legal system is inherently flawed by a lot of the precedent system.


No the legal system worked correctly for once.

By defending the Constitutional Liberties of it's citizens.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Personally I would give up nothing. I am a lot more tolerant and able to ignore than a lot of people. It is for those who are extremely sensitive that our rights will become limited.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007

And a few of us Missourians didn't take to kindly to this asshat and his followers disrespecting the grieving families.


I don't take kindly to people disrespecting the Freedoms our soldiers bled for.

That is a fast way to make his/her funeral a joke by trying to ruin everything they fought for.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Personally I would give up nothing. I am a lot more tolerant and able to ignore than a lot of people. It is for those who are extremely sensitive that our rights will become limited.


Those "extremely sensitive" people are tyrannical, and obviously willing to commit Violence in favor of their views. (As the video I linked proves).

Because it's all justified of course, in their screwed up one sided selfish views.

How ironic it truly is.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Phelps and his followers put themselves in a position to receive violence. They choose to protest funerals of Military personnel. NO ONE MADE THEM PROTEST! Yes they have a right to there royally messed up views and opinions but they also need to learn some respect for the grieving families.

So he won his court case. the Missouri law was the only thing that was keeping him and his followers from getting their asses kicked in this state. or worse killed. Now he has no protection and better not cry when him and his followers do get their asses kicked at the next funeral they choose to protest.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
People are protected from hate speech. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything.

It is called the harm principle. If a person's statement can cause harm, it is not covered under freedom of speech.

I personally believe in freedom from speech.



Your speech harms me.

So you agree you should be banned correct?

Sorry but I think you only support speech that you agree with, obviously.

And people are only protected from speech that incites violence. Not hate speech your wrong on that 100%.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I have a sneaking suspicion that when Phelps' does get on the receiving end of his hate, he won't get much sympathy from LEO. If I was an officer, I'd lose reports, manipulate evidence, etc. even if the dude was killed - And then consider most LEO are Veterans

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Phelps and his followers put themselves in a position to receive violence.


No, they put themselves in a position to reveal the anti-freedom hypocrisy that is DESTROYING our nation at it's fundamental cores.

Your comments disturb me greatly. What if I felt that way about YOUR opinions?

"Mercenary puts himself in a position to receive violence" (with his opinions).
See I can turn it right back around on you.

And this proves why you are wrong. No one deserves violence for their opinions. Ever.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Mercenary2007

And a few of us Missourians didn't take to kindly to this asshat and his followers disrespecting the grieving families.


I don't take kindly to people disrespecting the Freedoms our soldiers bled for.

That is a fast way to make his/her funeral a joke by trying to ruin everything they fought for.


you know the grieving families tried to ask him and his followers to protest quietly and what happened he and his followers just got louder and louder. so you tell me who's rights are really violated now by the federal court of appeals?

so since your standing up for this clowns right to protest now matter how revolting him and his followers are your saying the families of the fallen war heroes don't have a right to bury their loved one in peace without some asshat like Phelps protesting and disrespecting their son or daughter.

both sides have a right to bury their loved ones in peace and to protest. its just a question of respect And Phelps and his group have NO RESPECT FOR ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES!

Maybe you should go listen to Phelps and his group if they protest a funeral close to where you live. I'm willing to bet 1 of 2 things will happen either yo will believe they trash he spews and stand with him or you will instantly hate him and want to kick his ass for the amount of disrepect he shows towards fallen war heros and their families.

and honestly i think if those fallen war heroes could see and hear what this clown is saying and doing to funerals of those that died in battle they wouldn't waste anytime kicking his ass because of the utter disrespect he shows towards their buddies in arms.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I have a sneaking suspicion that when Phelps' does get on the receiving end of his hate, he won't get much sympathy from LEO. If I was an officer, I'd lose reports, manipulate evidence, etc. even if the dude was killed - Especially considering most LEO are Veterans

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]


Wow man that's getting very sick and unlawful indeed.

No wonder there is no Justice in this nation anymore. No wonder this nation is a failed joke. No wonder the TOILET FLUSHED.

Good bye freedom. Hello criminal tyranny.


What the hell were these soldiers DYING for in the first place? Your "right to cover up murders of people you don't personally like?"



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


But they are violating the harm principle.

It is the same principle that keeps protestors from walking around with pictures of penises in front of schools.

So should those who advocate sex education be allowed to march around with large pictures of genitals in front of schools?

I think not.


There are limits.

People have such a knee jerk reaction to any limit on FOS that they get skittish and forget the other side also has FOS.

The group isn't being silenced altogether. They are just not allowed to picket around a funeral. Both sides win.

Now, if this funeral was taking place at a private residence,would the supposed FOS supporters be so quick to defend the rights of this group?

Ever consider the government is being too lax, and not protecting people from harm that should be?

As I always say, FOS has its limits. People need to learn them before jumping up and screaming murder and that FOS is being trampled on.

As I said in the other thread, you don't have a right to scream fire in a theater. Because when everyone stampedes out, and if my grandmother falls and gets hurt, you bet I can sue you till you bleed. Because your statement created harm.

If these protestors are yelling so loudly that the conductor of the funeral can't be heard, than that person is now being silenced.

FOS truley means both sides can be heard. Which means that the crazy group has a right to picket, but should be done 100 yards away from any funeral.

And who says the judge isn't being lazy and not wanting all these complaints filling up their courtrooms?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by nixie_nox
People are protected from hate speech. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything.

It is called the harm principle. If a person's statement can cause harm, it is not covered under freedom of speech.

I personally believe in freedom from speech.



Your speech harms me.

So you agree you should be banned correct?

Sorry but I think you only support speech that you agree with, obviously.

And people are only protected from speech that incites violence. Not hate speech your wrong on that 100%.



What a weak arguement. Is that the best you can do?

And read up on it before making what is obviously an emotional and baseless statement.

It is called a search engine. Try it sometime.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by misinformational
 


But they are violating the harm principle.

It is the same principle that keeps protestors from walking around with pictures of penises in front of schools.


You don't know the law or understand freedom at all. Zero Zilch.

There is no "harm principal" other than the many laws against VIOLENCE and destruction of property.

Your example about people with indecent pictures are COVERED under the indecency laws.

Nice try, but again you fail miserably.

I hate to say it, but maybe you will find the laws of China or North Korea more to your liking??

They enjoy banning free speech there.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


No one's debating the evil of Phelps' - But I stand up for everyone's right to protest because I'm protecting mine and my fellow American's right to speak freely regardless of what we have to say and no matter how good or evil that message may be. Sometimes that means accepting that people will abuse those rights in disgusting ways... But as soon as we allow the infringement of any Constitutionally protected rights, we are surrendering that amendment and allowing for further infringements.

Phelps' will be dead (murdered or not) within a relatively short time.. Hopefully our Constitution will live on for future generations. If the Supreme Court rules to ban protests at funerals, we are sacrificing the legacy of the fallen that died protecting it - Where really would the disservice lie then?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Again, since people apparently don't realize this yet, Phelp's and his group may not believe a damn thing they say. Phelp's was a civil rights lawyer in the 60's, and many of the members of the WBC are lawyers as well. It's how they make money. They are a cabal of lawyers using religion to circumvent taxes and to cause havoc with what they say. They're purposely inflammatory because if someone attacks them or slights them at ALL, they bring them to court.

With that said, this is a good decision based solely on the ability to protest without legal ramifications. It's a precedent that leads to a dangerous slippery slope that will inevitably be abused by the government, corporations and basically anyone with the ability to.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I think a private funeral should not be allowed to be impinged by a public protest. As a private function it should be allowed to call upon law enforcement to keep public intrusion at bay.


It's funny that all of you freefome lovers of America can't accept a protest, even as immoral and disrespectful as it is.

So I guess freedom and the right to assemble and protest is only okay when it fits your idealogy....

I mean this is what makes us different from oppresive regime and such. We can't agree with everyone but it is our duty and responsability to let them voice their opinions.

just sayin



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox


What a weak arguement. Is that the best you can do?

And read up on it before making what is obviously an emotional and baseless statement.

It is called a search engine. Try it sometime.


Wow you didn't even debate the points. You only said "your dumb I disagree" basically.

Why don't YOU look up the Constitution???

Here I will help you.

Bill of Rights.
en.wikipedia.org...
US Bill
en.wikipedia.org...

1st Amendment Protections
en.wikipedia.org...


infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble


They were PEACEFULLY assembling to voice their opinions. 100% legal and protected.

Thank GOD the Judge knows the law. For once!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join