Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by beezzer
 


I understand it's a free speech issue, but the issue about protesting at funerals, I am against. Everyone can have their free speech, but making a public display in front of sad and upset family members, is just flat out wrong imo.

-SAP-


It's wrong. It's in bad taste. It shows poor thought and a lack of sensitivity and intelligence. It's piss-poor and shows a lack of character.

But the Constitution does not have a clause stating that only "smart and well thought out" protests can occur.

Even idiots are allowed to protest.
(re; NBP, KKK)




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I agree completely. I find the message and practices of WBC to be despicable. But I stand up for their rights, just like anyone else.


Not all free speech is protected.

Especially if that speech could cause imminent lawless action.

en.wikipedia.org...


Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.


It's obvious that WBC is there only to cause trouble.
And certainly if the family members were incited to violence because of the speech.
Then it would be the duty of the police to remove for "public safety" reasons.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Using your argument then the KKK or NBP should not be allowed to protest.

Thoughts?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


Wrong. WrongWrongWrong.

Once you start limiting free speech, even with assclowns like Westboro, then who is next?

I STRONGLY disagree with this.

And yes, I'm active duty Army.
edit on 3-8-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

I couldn't agree more. The Nazi scum at Skokie, Illinois were pretty much the bottom of society as I think about things. Even they had their right to a parade and it's one case I actually applaud the ACLU for being on the right side of principle....even if the example was vile. Free Speech doesn't have business hours and this is as far a reach as everything else lately.

It won't survive the first level of Federal Appeals court, if it even lives that long. Political stunt...but a lot worse if it actually stands.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by grey580
 


Using your argument then the KKK or NBP should not be allowed to protest.

Thoughts?


Quite possibly.
Of course it depends upon the circumstances.

For example if the KKK wanted to go into the Harlem, NY or Compton, CA. And burn a cross.
Would that be a good idea?
No of course not.
A protest in those circumstances would not be permitted.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
I just noticed another thread on anti-OWS protests. Don't want to cross-threads or anything but that and this?

It's easy to lull some of the populace because Westboro are such ###holes.

And now OWS?

First they came to silence Westboro, and I didn't complain. Because they're jerks.

Then they came for OWS, and I didn't complain, because they're jerks.

Thn they came for the Tea Part-. . . . . . . . . . . . .



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by grey580
 


Using your argument then the KKK or NBP should not be allowed to protest.

Thoughts?


Quite possibly.
Of course it depends upon the circumstances.

For example if the KKK wanted to go into the Harlem, NY or Compton, CA. And burn a cross.
Would that be a good idea?
No of course not.
A protest in those circumstances would not be permitted.


But they DO do this in the south (predominently).

Point is, someone will always get butt-hurt at a protest!

I've been to several Tea Party rallys and there were shouts and ugly talk about us!



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You said it, not me.


This had definitely crossed my mind though. Same tactics, different group and different cause. Who is next?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
But they DO do this in the south (predominently).

Point is, someone will always get butt-hurt at a protest!

I've been to several Tea Party rallys and there were shouts and ugly talk about us!


Yes of course.
As long as it's just talk.
But if people started to throw rocks or bottles.
Then the protest can be ended by the police.

We had a thread recently that dealt with protesters at a muslim festival that were removed by the police.
After festival goers began throwing rocks.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
This is retarded. First it's implying that soldiers/veterans are more important than other civilians. Second, it's a clear violation of the first amendment. Third, it's reinforcing the DISASTROUS mindset that if we find something distasteful, then we can create a law out of thin air to regulate that sense of taste.

Pathetic.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by beezzer
But they DO do this in the south (predominently).

Point is, someone will always get butt-hurt at a protest!

I've been to several Tea Party rallys and there were shouts and ugly talk about us!


Yes of course.
As long as it's just talk.
But if people started to throw rocks or bottles.
Then the protest can be ended by the police.

We had a thread recently that dealt with protesters at a muslim festival that were removed by the police.
After festival goers began throwing rocks.



You're a respected member of ATS, so please forgive my base reply, but "sticks and stones".

It is the responsibility of those whom are getting protested to remain inn the right, otherwise, they become no better than the protesters.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Our Founding Fathers would have told you that common decency did not and could not be addressed in a document. They would have told us that character and honor are in your heart and your soul. They knew that you cannot legislate morality or common decency.

www.americanthinker.com...


The paragraph above speaks volumes to me. I find it sad that we need to pass a bill for common decency. That we, as humans, the most evolved animal on the planet, have to be told that protesting at a funeral is wrong. That we have to make it illegal in order to stop it, that we have to lose our freedom of speech because some groups don’t understand that it is wrong, and that some people see no problem with them protesting in such a fashion.


Thanks,
Blend57



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

I kind of agree with you. But then, don't the family members have a right to a peaceful funeral for their loved one? Their rights are being violated. And they aren't banning them altogether, just a period of time when they would be most irritating.

edit on 3-8-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by beezzer
 

I kind of agree with you. But then, don't the family members have a right to a peaceful burial for their loved one? Their rights are being violated. And they aren't banning them altogether, just a period of time when they would be most irritating.



It's like firearms.

The pols don't want to ban ALL firearms, just the ones that look like AK-47's.

Once you conceed on any point of freedom, then it stops becomming a right and becomes a "negotiation" point.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by StupidShouldHurt
 


Well as I understand WBC protests have been limited to make sure they remain peaceable. They need to stay certain distance away etc. Also that definition is it from normal dictionary? I get this from a law dictionary:


peaceable [pē-sə-bəl] adj
: marked by freedom from dispute, strife, violence, or disorder [the right to assembly] [ possession]
peace·ably [-blē]
adv


Findlaw.com

Also disclaimer:
I hate WCB and think they are the lowest scum of the universe. They only do their little charades so they get someone to aggro on them and they get a nice lawsuit. They do have some rights thought. And we have a right to call them worms too



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Indeed. The founding fathers wrote our Constitution in such absolute language and terms for that reason, in my opinion. It was fascinating, learning some of the details that High School never got to during my college history course last year. They spent a long time just debating how to debate and then, what words to use. They also instituted the first Media Blackout (Closed the shutters on Independence hall to literally, black it out.. lol) A lot of fun and interesting details.

However, the most important part is what you note there. Clarity wasn't one of their problems...it just takes people not looking to read our rights to say something they don't. No law...no abridgment...they couldn't have been clearer. A friggen picture drawn in the margins wouldn't have been clearer.

I'll bet the British would have passed laws about being too close to a tea Shipment after Boston, too... We just can't go down this road for restricting anyone, lest we all get it eventually.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The government passing laws to enforce good manners and decency, kind of makes me shutter. The mothers and grandmothers of these protesters either did not teach respect, compassion, and social graces -- or they are hiding their faces in shame or turning over in their graves. Their actions indicate poor breeding.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
So they have a previous law since 2006, never heard of them enforcing it, but now apparently we have a greater need to enhance the old law. What am I missing here? Did we not have a scenario a few years ago and recently where the old law could have been enforced?

I'm old school, learned the easy and hard way, you never volunteer for anything, and never ever give up your rights for no one.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I really don't see the issue here. They can and will continue to do what they do 301 feet away from a military funeral, two hours before and after. It's very specific and inconsequential to everyone in this country except WBC, am I wrong?

"But Sek! The First Amendment says..."

Get real. No one here will be affected by being restricted from protesting in close proximity to those funerals...

Meanwhile, HR 347 goes completely unnoticed and remains arguably a much larger threat to our constitutional rights.
edit on 3-8-2012 by Sek82 because: corrections/additions



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 

Wrong. WrongWrongWrong.

Once you start limiting free speech, even with assclowns like Westboro, then who is next?

I STRONGLY disagree with this.

And yes, I'm active duty Army.

- They still have their constitutional right to protest .... good.
- They don't have a right to disrupt the religious practices (funerals) of others ... good.
Seems to be a good call by Congress.
( did I just say that? Saying Congress did something good doesn't happen often!!)

Geez some people are real a@@s holes... Let them berry there loved one in peace ... they don't need to be called baby killers like in Nam .. Sorry just wrong. My friend held great restraint in burring his son. Give these people a breck!





top topics
 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join