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.

 

Arizona lawmakers pass emergency legislation to block Westboro protesters

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Blazer
 



Thank goodness, it's about time.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I find it heartbreaking that a law must be pased in order those that mourn bury their dead. We have been given the God-given right to speak our minds, to stand against anything in this world we want. But to protest the dead and those that are placing them to rest? Where is the "human" in all this? Would it be alright for to protest at the pope's funeral? Of course ( In America Only). Would this be something I would do? NO! Respect people! Where is the respect? I would respect my worst enemy in the burial of their loved one's. Where is your's?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Reply to post by krakencampbell
 


Some people have none. But That does not give governments the right to encroach on the freedom that they have.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The fact that people are glad a government took action to curtail freedom is stupifying to me and, to be honest, makes me sick. I've even heard some talking about modifying existing permits for protesting. This is equally disgusting since the entire idea of freedom or rights is not having to ask permission to use them.

The entire idea of freedom of speech was not to "protect" speech that was used as some think it should be, but for exactly this reason; to protect speech you disagree with, even violently disagree with.

The rights of this nation have been nitpicked away by government to ease their actions and cowards that agree or even ask for it really don't have any reason to complain about government encroachment or other related matters.

In the end, if you feel so strongly about it, put your money where your mouth is and go there yourself to counter their actions. Otherwise, leave the government out of it because there are already hundreds of thousands willing to take your place there to protect the funerals with or without you.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Hi Jethro, I am guessing you were referring to my post.
I am not happy about the facts that permits exist for protesters, not one bit, BUT they do exist today, now.
My question is how come this avenue is not enforced in this case? Is there a loophole somewhere? If they ask for a permit and it HAS TO BE GRANTED, designate a cordoned off area like they do with political protests. Fair is fair correct?

I may be wrong about permits in this particular area because I do not live there, but come on, denying a permit due to this being considered an obscenity toward the mourners is not unrealistic. Do they not pull stunts on clan rallies all the time when it comes to getting permission?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
This is exactly what the freak was hoping for and he finally has his chance to sue the State of Arizona, just like Obama.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
These people are scum. To celebrate the murder of a 9 year old girl is not human. They have first amendment rights but if the government doesn't limit their access to the funeral there will be violence. Arizona Facebook groups have been popping up all day with the intention of organizing caravans to Tucson to block these nuts from ruining this poor girls funeral.

I fear there is going to be a violent riot against these people.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Normally I'd say something about 1st amendment rights, but 300 feet isn't a big deal. I thought they were going to stop them from protesting all together. It doesn't seem harmful to put a restriction on specific group of people from being at a specific place.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by white_raven
 




very interesting that this bill passed in record time, a bill that en cringes on our 1st amendment rights.


No it doesn't. It is no more egregious than a noise curfew. It just makes them exercise their 1st amendment rights somewhere else than in the face of a grieving family.

The Arizona law is based on Ohio's similar law. I understand that the Ohio law has already been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS.

BTW, with or without this law, Phelps will not get near the funeral. Tucsonans will ensure that, I guarantee it.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 




These are the type of idiots that give all christians a bad name.


I disagree. They are simply not Christian, so their evil shouldn't rub off on Christians in any way.

It doesn't matter what claims spew from their ugly cake holes or signs they put on their buildings or platitudes they put in their hate filled propaganda, they are not Christian.
edit on 12/1/2011 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 




The fact that people are glad a government took action to curtail freedom is stupifying to me and, to be honest, makes me sick.


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.
edit on 12/1/2011 by rnaa because: grammr



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

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.


Not considered protected because it infringes on the freedoms of others.


How about the last time you verbally assaulted a cop or other government employee? Never?


I have done so before, and will again. Whether it be in person, via letter, email, or on forums. It is protected under the 1st Amendment. I have the right to say what I please about government officials.


How about the last time you told someone you thought they should die because you didn't like their skin color? Never?


I have never done that, because I am not racist. But that is also protected by the the 1st Amendment, unless the other person is put in a clear and present fear of their life. Then it infringes on their freedoms.


There are limits to free speech regardless of whether anyone thinks it's fair or not.


I agree. The limits are if the speech infringes on someone's rights.


The first and last examples above are crimes, the second I believe is but I'm not entirely certain on that.


The first is correct. It is basically inciting a riot. The last two are not, unless imminent danger to a party is present.


Point being, there are some things you cannot say or do and claim freedom of speech.


Again, I agree. These things are things that would infringe on the freedoms of others.


Making protesters stay 300 feet away from a funeral is not infringing on their rights in any way.


The government is restricting their speech in a public place. That is against the 1st amendment. Pretty cut and dry here.


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.


Seeing as how they will be on sidewalks, which is public property, if they are not restricting the freedoms of others, the government can't tell them when and where they may have their speech.


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.


I agree. People need to be more vocal about it. I complain regularly to state and local officials when the Constitution is violated.


No one is telling this group of wacko's that they can't show the world once again just how crazy they are,


The government is restricting when and where they may speak, which is giving them permission to use the Freedom of Speech, which the government is expressly forbidden to do.


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.


If the family is in a public place (roads or sidewalks), then they should not expect privacy.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
. . .

No it doesn't. It is no more egregious than a noise curfew.
. . .


A noise curfew does not violate the first amendment because someone's freedoms are being infringed upon.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
. . .

I'm repeating this because it bears repeating: the rat bag Phelps freedom of speech is not being infringed.


Really? Let's see. What else you have to say.


He can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Just not wherever he wants.



Ahhh. So in fact, it is being infringed upon.


The balance between his freedom of speech and the family's right to grieve in peace is maintained.


There is no balance. No rights are being violated. It is not a hard concept to grasp.


edit on 1/12/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
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 .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I'm going to let lemon fresh reply to you as you desired but I have to ask you a question. Please tell me where in the Constitution I have a right to be free from harassment from any entity other than the federal government?

And a small note about your use of Random House dictionary. I think perhaps you may want to reference a legal dictionary when defining words used in law.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

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
.


Easily confused by the Constitution? You sound like a lawyer.



You , and others like you , jump on the First Amendment bandwagon , trying to give the impression that you are well versed in the Constitution .


Ahh, I am jumping on the bandwagon. Do you have proof of such? Anyone who knows me, knows that I typically go strict Constitution. It is hard sometimes, as some things go against my beliefs. But a Constitiounally minded person should give to each his own, unless it infringes on others rights.


You ARE NOT . Otherwise , you would know that your argument holds no merit . Here , I will explain it to you ...


Now I know you must be a lawyer heh.


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 .


Ok.


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 .


So again, what rights are being disparaged?

If you say the right of privacy, I am going to pimp slap you. PUBLIC street = no privacy.


By protesting funerals , they are CONTEMPTUOUSLY IGNORING the rights of the families to be free from harASSment .


Hmmm Harassment. Prove it. Prove that the family is being harassed. Remember, harassment is systematic, and usually causes a fear of imminent danger. Oh, and by law, must be aimed towards a specific person.


The westboro low-lifes are showing CONTEMPTUOUS DISCOURTESY to the rights of others .


Again, show me where they are infringing on others rights?


Therefore , their pathetic behavior is UNCONSTITUTIONAL .


You saying it does not make it so


Contrary to your argument , these idiots are infringing upon the Constitutional rights of others .


Nope. Not at all. And the Supreme Court seems to be on the same page as well. Put your emotions to the side, and look at it objectively.


If you are going to wave the constitutional banner in defense of these idiots , you should first KNOW THE CONSTITUTION .

CASE DISMISSED .


I do, which is why your argument does not hold water.

The thing about free speech, is it even includes things that you will hate, despise, and even make you sick to your stomach. That does not mean the government gets to silence someone just because people do not like what they have to say.
edit on 1/12/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/12/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 





A noise curfew does not violate the first amendment because someone's freedoms are being infringed upon.


Really?

What about the family's right to grieve in peace and dignity? Isn't Phelps' infringing that right?

How is that different from a noise curfew infringing a party goers right to play loud music while preventing the next door neighbor the right to sleep.

I repeat: Phelps can say what he wants, when he wants. There are many many many restrictions on being able to exercise your freedom of speech where ever you want.

The famous, 'FIRE' can be yelled when you want, just not where it will cause unwarranted panic. You choose to say this is because the theatergoers right to enjoy a peaceful performance trumps the shouters freedom of speech.

Exactly why is the family's right to a peaceful and dignified funeral for their loved ones less important that a theatergoers right to enjoy a peaceful performance.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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.


My comment was more of the nature of people in the debate rather than this specific instance. Personally, as long as they are on public land I feel there is no need or purpose behind the legislation other than the daily dog and pony show of politics.

Again, there are literally millions in this nation that are disgusted by what these people have to say and if even a fraction of those show up to encase the funeral as a shield then the legislation will be pointless, much like other similar legislation.


The restriction is no worse that ordinary noise curfews maintained by most communities all over the country.


Noise curfews aren't really a good comparison.


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.


Hey, freedom's ugly and it has a real tenancy to get messy. I don't disagree with police presence to maintain order should things get out of control, however legislation like this enforce the idea that free speech is tolerated only in specific areas of certain distances from "fill-in-the-blank".

We should be fighting the government rather than enabling it. After all, we only get to keep the freedoms we continually wrestle from the government.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join