Funeral Protests by Westboro Baptist Church are not protected by Constitution

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Morality? Not the Constitution?

Morality is something we all disagree on.

You think it's moral to suppress someone's rights because you DONT LIKE WHAT THEY SAY.

I think it's IMMORAL.

The Constitution is here to protect me and others, from the likes of you folks who want to change the rules so you don't get criticized anymore.

Thank God the Constitution protects me from this type of draconian tyranny.



you still trolling ? Clearly you missed everything that was in the OP i'll give you one more chance to read it again , before you spew your bull# again . Its really not rocket science . The constitution makes it very clear unless of course you refuse to even read it . Don't troll ... pull your head out your ass and read the OP its very easy to understand and clear to even the biggest idiots on ATS




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Your argument is negated by the very quote that you posted .

Maybe you should try your luck at reading comprehension .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
You think you have a right to be in public and not have to hear others yelling. Well you don't. Public is a loud place get used to it.

If you want privacy, use private property. It's really simple.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Your argument is negated by the very quote that you posted .

Maybe you should try your luck at reading comprehension .


Yeah, instead of explaining what the hell your talking about, lets just claim the opponent has no reading comprehension.

How about lets explain how you think the 9th Amendment allows you to pass NEW LEGISLATION that LIMITS the FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY/PROTEST????

Explain it to us wise guy.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


The problem is that the rights referred to in the 9th Amendment are not specifically stated, so it gets into a very gray area.

That being said, I would say that a level of privacy and decorum is an inherent right for funeral attendees and if a state wished to put that in writing, it would not be overruled by the 1st Amendment due to the 9th.
edit on 12-1-2011 by WickettheRabbit because: It's my right.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I am not trolling, I am defending my freedom of speech and assembly.

Just because you hate the fact others have a right to an opinion, does not give you the grounds to call me a troll for defending their rights.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
The consitutional thing aside, this is similar to incidents we get over here (UK) where hate filled people, such as the EDL/BNP/Islamic extremists, get away with protesting things and spouting hate - but even these people pale into nothing compared to the Westboro scum.

I think freedom of speech is great and should not be curtailed, but you have to look at when this "freedom of speech" directly encroaches on another person(s) freedoms (as stated by someone else) why should an innocent family having to undergo the deeply traumatic event of burying their 9 year old daughter be made to feel more anguish and suffering because a bunch of warped b******s decide they have the right to protest this?
Could you even imagine if you went through such an ordeal, and some people turned up and did what Westboro are doing?! How would you react? Not very well I would imagine.

I sincerely hope enough people go to this funeral and support this poor family by ensuring that they cannot see Westboro's protest and ensure that they don't have the worst day of their lives made EVEN worse by some really poor excuses for "human beings".



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



I am a ... Constitutionalist.


And apparently a very poor one at that .

A true constitutionalist would know the entire Constitution , not just parts of it . You can't cherry-pick it to suit your needs .

The 9th Amendment is very explicit , sorry that you can't understand what it is saying . Try again .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
If you read only the text of the 1st Amendment, your argument seems to be on track. However, the conclusion, in light of all of the amendments, is not correct. All of the protections of the 1st Amendment are applicable to the states by virtue of the "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment, and have been so applicable since at least 1873, when the Slaughterhouse cases were decided by the Supreme Court. The same is true with all the provisions of the Bill of Rights, except for part of the Fifth Amendment having to do with prosecution only by Grand Jury indictment and perhaps the part of the Eighth Amendment having to do with "excessive fines" and "excessive bail. There are no cases explicitly talking about the fines and bail provisions. For an excellent discussion of the history of the "Incorporation" theory, see www.law.umkc.edu...
It was this incorporation of the Second Amendment that resulted in Chicago's gun ban being stricken last year in the McDonald case. For the first case expressly holding the free speech clause applicable to the states, see Gitlow v. New York (1925). "Non-erbal speech is likewise protected. (Stromberg v. California, 1931.)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You think you have a right to be in public and not have to hear others yelling. Well you don't. Public is a loud place get used to it.

If you want privacy, use private property. It's really simple.



And you clearly show the difference between moral, ethical, and respectful people by those very comments. You are the type that our fore fathers hoped would be weeded out by the freedoms given. The difference between you my friend and everyone else on this thread is that we are respectful moral people and you use the constitution to be rude, disrespectful and outright unconstitutional when it serves your purpose. I've never really been able to convince liberals of their way, because it's a state of mind from your upbringing. Once you see the big pic, you will realize your fallacy in your beliefs.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Thankfully the Federal Courts actually did something decent for once and have overturned all of these attempts to limit protest and free speech rights. Yes the Supreme Court continually rules in favor of Westboro, I wonder why? Maybe because they are protected by the Constitution.

But sadly, due to all the countless death threats from media brainwashed masses, one of them will eventually attempt to assassinate the Westboro folks inevitably.

However everyone thinks this is ok.

People hate Phelps so bad, they don't care if someone shoots him.

It's pure evil imo. Phelps is just a idiot who blabs a lot, he didn't hurt anyone.

But hey Media mind control can sure make you foam at the mouth with hatred over anyone can't it?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 



... instead of explaining what the hell your talking about ...


Ummm , did you not read the OP ? I explained it therein , sorry you failed to comprehend it . Try again .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I would say passing city ordinances would stop the problem. If one chooses to be in the city one is choosing to abide by the local rules, or be subject to arrest. One has the choice to not be in the city if one cannot abide the ordinances. If I were the cities, all across america, I would begin passing ordinances that would protect funeral homes and the like from having their peace broken by protestors. Only allowing silent portests, say, and each participant must purchase from the city a permit if the protest is at a funeral or wedding, or whatever the city sees fit, the price of permit is then charged at say five hundred per.

This is reasonable. Also would be ordinances for new funeral homes and churches, that they be set back off onto the private property a certain good distance, and any who enter the property must be a member in good standing of the church, or have a pass for the funeral you wish to attend.

It may seem much, but most people are reasonable people who just want dignity and respect. Why should they have to give that up so someone can spew hate at them? In todays world, there is no end to venues from where Phelps can spew hate. No one is trying to take his right to do so away. But there is also nothing wrong with the majority of city leaders agreeing to and passing ordinances with rules governing protests int heir town, specific to funeral protests, is called the proper way to handle things. It violates no one rights at all.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
First off the 14th amendment provides for equal protection, so claiming that the 1st does not apply to the states is wrong.

In the original Constitution, I would agree with you. At this point in time it does not work.

Second of all, at this point in time, a SCOTUS has not stated that the right to a funeral is indeed a right, which would fall under the 9th.

So at this point in time, Westboro is Constitutionally clear.

It sickens me too, but that is the price we pay for freedom.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WickettheRabbit
 



The problem is that the rights referred to in the 9th Amendment are not specifically stated


In the context of freedom of speech , I explained all of that in the OP .



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11PB11
I've never really been able to convince liberals of their way,


I am not a liberal.

I actually could have swore you were the liberal LOL....

I mean come on you hate Phelps. Thats 100% liberal.

What is the difference between you hating phelps and phelps hating gay people? NONE...

I do find it funny however that when you guys saw I disagreed with complex reasoning, you had no recourse other than to lay blanket statements like "Your a liberal" "You have no reading comprehension" "You are a troll".

It shows me how well designed your argument really is.
Whats next? Call me a dis-info agent because I disagree with you?
Pass laws to shut me up?
Seriously...
edit on 12-1-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by 11PB11
I've never really been able to convince liberals of their way,


I am not a liberal.

I actually could have swore you were the liberal LOL....

I mean come on you hate Phelps. Thats 100% liberal.

What is the difference between you hating phelps and phelps hating gay people? NONE...



Do not ever, put words in my mouth to attempt to win an argument.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Federal law supercedes state laws.
2nd



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 11PB11
 


Starred your post - It was only after I added my post that several more people including you had also posted.
I agree entirely with your point on morality. It should be that society does not stand for such despicable acts as this!
Think about this - a family have had their daughter taken from them in a tragic incident, and have to go through the deeply upsetting process of her funeral. A decent society respects people at a time like this, giving them the peace and privacy to do what they need to do without any outside upset or influence.
I am sure people here have experienced a funeral of a loved one, (I have been to all 4 grandparents funerals) and the upset and distress at such an event is unbelievable.
Now multiply that infinitely if you have lost the most unbelievably precious thing in your life - your own child - and I dare anyone to tell me, constitution or whatever - that anyone should be able to turn up and disrupt this most distressing of times.
Society needs to make a stand against these sub humans and not stand for it any more.

Muzzleflash - I note you refer to freedoms being quashed. How would you honestly feel if this was your child? - and I do mean honestly not just to agree with your views on freedoms.
You would be OK with these "people" turning up and disrupting that event would you. Because I don't think you would, nor would ANY decent human being. I know I wouldn't - the anger directed at these people would land me in a lot of trouble I suspect.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well would the funeral fall under the right of a business person to operate their business reasonably? Reasonably be able to fufill the contract owner made with dead persons family to host funeral? Should business owner have those rights or not?

No one is restricting protestors right to protest. Protestor has no right to protest in city sidewalks if town has anti ordinance against it. Go protest where it is permitted, after you buy your city protest permit.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join