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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


no this country went down the toilet because of people like yourself. its because of people like you that their is no justice in this country.

maybe you should read the missouri law so you know what it says.

there is nothing banning his group from protesting the funerals they just can't be closer than 300 ft of the funeral. they can't protest along the funeral procession route while it is going from the church to the cemetery.

again its because of people like you their is no justice in this country. if there was justice this guy would be in jail for in sighting violence. anyone in their right mind should know protesting funerals is the fastest way to get your ass kicked for being disrespectful to the dead.




posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


Most of his 'followers' are his extended family and ALL his children are lawyers.


Muzzle, your a friend of mine and I agree with you that the first amendment MUST be protected BUT..did you READ what was on their t-shirts? It had nothing to do with the war or the military. They are calling this fallen hero and the rest that are there for the funeral 'Fags'. A derogatory term used against homosexuals. What does that have to do with the protesting against the two fronts we are now fighting? They are antagonists, NOT protesters! Big difference!
If they had signs protesting the useless waste of American lives then i would agree with you but they are protesting against something that has no bearing on the fallen Veteran being entered on the family plot and using this to further an agenda completely at odds with the true intent of the funeral!

Zindo



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
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.


Agreed 100%.

He is a civil rights lawyer and is trying to test what Freedom is really about.

I will link a thread I wrote about Phelps and his history of defending the rights of Black Americans back when it was taboo to defend them in court during the 60s. Even black lawyers wouldn't defend them because there was no money in it. He has been threatened with violence for defending the Bill of Rights for a long time.

I am not saying hes a good guy. But he's not the bad guy everyone paints him to be either. He is in the middle, IMHO.

"Westboro Baptist Church, Civil Rights Pioneers??"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I suggest the haters do a little research before they start promoting violent acts against people they disagree with. Also they need to learn what the heck Freedom is and read the Bill of Rights.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Freedom of Speech does not stop just because someone uses a word that is offensive to "some people".

I don't find any words offensive. So I don't mind at all. I am able to ignore those whom I disagree with. Such as Westboro's recent escapades, I do not agree with their asinine ideas but I will defend them to the death.

And a fag was a cigarette and a stick first.

If I have no freedom of speech, what's the point of serving in this military? What's the point of dying for America?

The dead soldiers demand we respect these negative people's right to Freedom. Bottom Line.

Anything less is 100x more disrespectful than a mere protest.

What are the soldiers fighting for (in their minds)???? Tyranny? Or Freedom??

[edit on 16-8-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Police and the Patriot Guard do protect the funeral and attendees from the protesters.


The only people who need protection are Phelps and his gang of loud mouths. Everyone wants to kill them for simply exercising their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

Even in this thread we have 3-4 posters openly suggesting VIOLENCE and or covering up murders for this man.

They need protection. Seriously.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007


no this country went down the toilet because of people like yourself. its because of people like you that their is no justice in this country.


The Judge ruled in OUR favor. Yours and Mine. Our freedom was protected.

Now if you think Freedom ruined this nation, I can help you get a plane ticket to China if you would rather live in a nation where there is no such thing as "freedom of speech".

In China you are not allowed to protest funerals. You will love it there.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You are incorrect.

Both the Harm Principle and Offense Principle are not legally defined within the United States - These are both British legal terms.

The Miller Test, or Three Prong Obscenity Test, is the legally defined term for limitations on Freedom of Speech within the United States. The test is conducted by SCOTUS and has only three areas of consideration, they follow:

1. Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

All three conditions have to be met to be able to be limited under the Miller Test. It's for the courts to decide if the criteria is met in Phelps' case. But it'd be hard to meet all three because Phelps' can argue his opinion has religious merit. Is what he does right, hell no... But he'll be stepping into another inalienable right when he argues such and he'll probably win - rightly so.


For those of you unaware, here are the definitions of the British Harm and Offence Principles:

Harm Principle: "...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Offence Principle: "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."

- Don't believe me, then google that $h!7

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Freedom of speech means protecting the reprehensible, vile, vulgar, and inflammatory regardless of your feelings or passions. Their very right to speak defends your rights.

Where do you stop once you ban a thought or expression. Who's morals or perceived moral standards do you use?

Brother Fred is a nut case, but attention is what he craves. All this is just buffing his overinflated ego.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


have you even read the missouri law? probably not.


SS SCS HCS HB 1026 — Funeral Protests. Makes it a class B misdemeanor to picket or protest in front of or about any location at which a funeral is held within one hour prior to the commencement of any funeral and until one hour following the cessation of any funeral. Any subsequent violation will be a class A misdemeanor. Currently, a person is prohibited from picketing or protesting in front of or about any church, cemetery, or funeral establishment.

source

alittle research on Phelps and his followers.


During the 1990s, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., went around picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with protest signs that read, “God Hates Fags.” But politicians began paying more attention recently when church members started showing up at the burials of soldiers and Marines killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Legislation is being considered in at least 14 states, and several of the bills moving quickly, with backing from legislative leaders and governors.

If they pass, the bills could set up a clash between privacy and free speech rights, and court challenges are almost certain.

“We’re not proposing to silence the speech of the Westboro Baptist Church, as offensive as most of us find that,” said Kansas Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, a Republican. Instead, he said, he is trying to achieve a balance that respects “the rights of families to bury their dead in peace.”

The church has about 75 members, most of them belonging to the extended family of Westboro Baptist’s pastor, the Rev. Fred Phelps. The church is an independent congregation that preaches a literal reading of the Bible.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps’ daughter and an attorney for the church, said states cannot interfere with their message that the soldiers were struck down by God because they were fighting for a country that harbors homosexuals and adulterers.


source

when his group protests they hold up signs that say stuff like

“God Hates Fags”
“God Made IEDs,”
“Thank God for Dead Miners,”
“God Hates Your Tears”
“Miners in Hell,”


IF you want to stand up and protect the rights of Phelps and his group thats your choice. But remember this just as he has a right to say what he wants and protest funerals and be disrespectful then people that don't agree with him also have the right to say and do to Phelps and his group what we want since justice hasn't been done for the grieving families.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 


After considering this a bit, I think all Phelps' is looking for is a Supreme Court case win - and as you say, the attention that accompanies such.

He's got a great case. And if memory serves, he lost the only case he argued in front of SCOTUS. Maybe he's just trying to set up a victory - Maybe all of this protests were simply staged events to get in front of the court. (?)



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Perhaps, and yes, I do agree that those theoretical actions I posted would be illegal and not in line with the natural rights that I'm advocating.

However, as a veteran I am outraged by disrupting a funeral procession of a fallen brother, especially the hurling of vicious insults (bullhorns were used)... I believe that Phelps' has the constitutional right to voice his opinion, however, if I were present I would have the moral obligation to protect the sanctity of the funeral - It's a slippery slope indeed


edit to add: The constitution is there to protect his rights of speech and protest... I'd be there to shut him the f*#k up (you can take the man out of the Marine Corps, but never the Marine Corps out the man - OOORAH!) . I would gladly go to jail over such and perhaps rightfully so. BTW, other than this point, I do agree with every other point you've made.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by Varemia
 


Your inalienable right of free speech isn't limited to public property.


It is if it is on private property... Our "inalienable" and constitutional rights only come into play when the GOVERNMENT tries to limit our freedoms, not the owners of private property.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


This is exactly the same as the Cordoba House mosque situation.

Legality does not equate to propriety.

Churches and developers may have the right to protest and build, but it doesn't always make their decisions the correct ones.

Going forward in the face of legitimate opposition sometimes reveals ugly motivations and intentional disrespect. But they are not unlawful, just reprehensible.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Soap box - on

But that's exactly it - No matter the motivation for anything -be it funeral protest, religious building, terrorist attack, etc. - we always have to uphold our inalienable rights for every person regardless of race, sex, or creed! We cannot let fear infringe upon anyone's basic rights as a human!

The unfortunate truth is that most people have sacrificed their rights for their fears. Most of these fears have been bred and fed to us by society at large and we've lost substancial liberty, as a species, because of it.

This doesn't even escape ATS, the recent religious threads are a perfect example. You know you have a problem when the people of a community that claims to have "denied ignorance" and to have been "awaken" are neither. This doesn't apply to our entire community, but there is a substantial portion that it does.

Soap box - off

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Freedom of Speech does not stop just because someone uses a word that is offensive to "some people".

sorry, i have to comment. the above is true.

I don't find any words offensive. So I don't mind at all. I am able to ignore those whom I disagree with. Such as Westboro's recent escapades, I do not agree with their asinine ideas but I will defend them to the death.


then you won't mind me calling you "cameltoe"

And a fag was a cigarette and a stick first.

fag is a ciggy, and fagot was a bundle of sticks to start a fire.

If I have no freedom of speech, what's the point of serving in this military? What's the point of dying for America?

The dead soldiers demand we respect these negative people's right to Freedom. Bottom Line.

ooooooooh yes, these guys died for some ahat to harass their families at their coming home.

Anything less is 100x more disrespectful than a mere protest.

What are the soldiers fighting for (in their minds)???? Tyranny? Or Freedom??

i doubt it is for what these bottom feeders are doing.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 



It is if it is on private property... Our "inalienable" and constitutional rights only come into play when the GOVERNMENT tries to limit our freedoms, not the owners of private property.


NO - the Constitution does not define what your alienable rights are (isn't there a big thread about his right now?). Inalienable rights exists becuase we, as society, agree that every human being is entitled to them.

The Constitution simply ensures that our government will not infringe or impede upon them.

So no matter where you are (even if it's a different planet - for all those extraterrestrial ATSers) - If you are human, you have these rights (even at a funeral).

[edit to add link - Inalienable/Natural Rights]


[edit on 17-8-2010 by misinformational]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


And anyone partaking in anything of the sort on my property has the inalienable right to a bullet through any major organ.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


I expect the SC will not hear the appeal and side with the judge who threw out the state's ban. Anything else would be unconstitutional. Yes, the Phelps' are vile, hateful people, but no state has the right to inhibit free speech or freedom of assembly.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 



It is if it is on private property... Our "inalienable" and constitutional rights only come into play when the GOVERNMENT tries to limit our freedoms, not the owners of private property.


NO - the Constitution does not define what your alienable rights are (isn't there a big thread about his right now?). Inalienable rights exists becuase we, as society, agree that every human being is entitled to them.

The Constitution simply ensures that our government will not infringe or impede upon them.

So no matter where you are (even if it's a different plant - for all those extraterrestrial ATSers) - If you are human, you have these rights (even at a funeral).

[edit to add link - Inalienable/Natural Rights]

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]


Sure, you have the rights on other planets and when you are dead.

You make a lot of sense.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FrancoUn-American
 



And anyone partaking in anything of the sort on my property has the inalienable right to a bullet through any major organ.


Not really

But I wouldn't think any less of ya




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join