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.
very interesting that this bill passed in record time, a bill that en cringes on our 1st amendment rights.
These are the type of idiots that give all christians a bad name.
The fact that people are glad a government took action to curtail freedom is stupifying to me and, to be honest, makes me sick.
Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
When was the last time you yelled "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater? Never I'm guessing.
How about the last time you verbally assaulted a cop or other government employee? Never?
How about the last time you told someone you thought they should die because you didn't like their skin color? Never?
There are limits to free speech regardless of whether anyone thinks it's fair or not.
The first and last examples above are crimes, the second I believe is but I'm not entirely certain on that.
Point being, there are some things you cannot say or do and claim freedom of speech.
Making protesters stay 300 feet away from a funeral is not infringing on their rights in any way.
They're free to yell as loud as they like, until someone complains about them disturbing the peace, and are free to wave the most hateful signs they can come up with in their designated protesting area.
This is no different than a city giving a permit to protest to any other group and telling them where they can and cannot hold their event, yet rarely does anyone complain about it violating free speech then.
No one is telling this group of wacko's that they can't show the world once again just how crazy they are,
but they are telling them that they can't cause emotional harm to the families who are in mourning by standing right behind them and telling them that their family member deserved to die.
Originally posted by rnaa
. . .
No it doesn't. It is no more egregious than a noise curfew.
. . .
Originally posted by rnaa
. . .
I'm repeating this because it bears repeating: the rat bag Phelps freedom of speech is not being infringed.
He can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Just not wherever he wants.
The balance between his freedom of speech and the family's right to grieve in peace is maintained.
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
Let me just start by saying that you sir , are one of those people who tend to make me go .
You , and others like you , jump on the First Amendment bandwagon , trying to give the impression that you are well versed in the Constitution .
You ARE NOT . Otherwise , you would know that your argument holds no merit . Here , I will explain it to you ...
Bill Of Rights , ratified December 15, 1791 , Amendment IX :
" The enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights , SHALL NOT be construed to deny or DISPARAGE others retained by the people ." (emphasis mine) .
Random House dictionary :
disparage : (1) to speak of or treat SLIGHTINGLY . (emphasis mine) .
(to) slight : (5) to ignore contemptuously . (7) contemptuous discourtesy .
There you have it . The westboro idiots have the right to free speach , UNTIL it DISPARAGES the rights of other rights retained by the people .
By protesting funerals , they are CONTEMPTUOUSLY IGNORING the rights of the families to be free from harASSment .
The westboro low-lifes are showing CONTEMPTUOUS DISCOURTESY to the rights of others .
Therefore , their pathetic behavior is UNCONSTITUTIONAL .
Contrary to your argument , these idiots are infringing upon the Constitutional rights of others .
If you are going to wave the constitutional banner in defense of these idiots , you should first KNOW THE CONSTITUTION .
CASE DISMISSED .
A noise curfew does not violate the first amendment because someone's freedoms are being infringed upon.
Originally posted by rnaa
I'm repeating this because it bears repeating: the rat bag Phelps freedom of speech is not being infringed. He can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Just not wherever he wants. The balance between his freedom of speech and the family's right to grieve in peace is maintained.
The restriction is no worse that ordinary noise curfews maintained by most communities all over the country.
Furthermore, this law could properly be interpreted as protecting Phelps freedom of speech, civil rights, and personal safety. Tucson residents will not let him near the funeral, and depending on how insistent he is, it could get ugly.