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

Stupid move......... Now they have a legitimate reason to cry. Freedom to protest is now even more diluted. What a disgrace. First "permits", then "free speech zones", now if you have a crappy message no free speech when we say. I dislike these morons, but I defend their right to state it. What is happening to this country?

Even idiots have the right to protest, so long as they aren't trespassing. I liked the trolling them and drowning them out idea. This is the wrong way to go about this, and will just make things worse.

If I'm walking down a public street and happen upon a WBC group and become offended, I have the choice to turn around and take a different route to avoid them while they protest.

Grieving family members do not have that choice when they are attending a funeral, and can fall under the "captive audience" doctrine - They cannot avoid the demonstration, and their rights are being abridged.

Furthermore, the signs held up by WBC members at funerals can arguably fall under the "fighting words" doctrine,

"There are narrow classes of speech which prevent language which is lewd and obscene, profane, libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting' words which by their utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942)

The right to bear arms affords a person the right to do just what it says, but does that mean they can take an armed Bradley Fighting Vehicle out for a spin in the streets of America? It falls under the definition of "arms", which they have a right to bear, so why not?

Free speech should not grant one the freedom to hold up fighting words in the face of a captive audience who are grieving and burying their dead.

reply to post by PsykoOps


That's how freedom of speech works today. your free to say what you want as long as you say what i want to hear .

Bill Maher found out the hard way when he got canned off his syndicated talk show on regular tv after he made his uh statement.

I intend no disrespect to any poster.

It seems to me that US citizens are always about their Rights. Nothing else seems to matter. What happened to responsibilities. It was short sighted of your founding fathers to mention rights and fail in mentioning responsibilities. These protesters need to be shot, dead! The are the worst *&^holes that the US can produce. They are sick depraved idiots.

At present the US is about rights with no responsibilities.

China is about responsibilities without many rights.

Now which country is going broke through uncontrolled sickening lust for wealth and power by it's leaders.

Why is compassion missing from the bill of rights.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


Are you mental? The most hated speech is the speech needed to be defended. No one bats an eye at popular speech.......

About bloody time, why not band protesting ALL funeral services, not just military services? Probably because the spineless politicians couldn't be see as weak on their stance against the 'gay agenda' during an election cycle. Typical.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by pheonix358

 

Are you mental? The most hated speech is the speech needed to be defended. No one bats an eye at popular speech.......

There is a time and a place for all things under the sky. A funeral is not the place for protests. The practice is sick and depraved. It shows a lack of moral fortitude, the absence of dignity. It is an outrage! You demonstrate the idea of free speech without responsibility, without morals and certainly without dignity.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


As long as they are not trespassing, it don't matter. It is within their rights. Freedom to protest does not limit what you agree with. Eh, # it right. Don't ask me to defend your rights, when you piss on everyone elses.

Originally posted by StupidShouldHurt
There is nothing in the constitution that protects protesters that want to cause nothing but trouble. It is not a right.

You would first of all, need to define "trouble".

If the US went on a breakaway "war spree" and you found the turn to be tasteless and worthy of protest, all of your actions would be considered "causing nothing but trouble". Who ends up defining "trouble"?

I don't agree with WBS obviously, who does? But usually, the only people that cause trouble or get violent are observers, as that is how WBS operates.

This is a very dangerous thing to do, you sometimes just need to accept that there are stupid people out there and it's not worth infringing on our rights as a whole "to stop it", because:

A: It doesn't even affect you, now does it? When was the last time you were directly affected by the Westboro Baptists? The media likes to "Make it your problem", when it really isn't.

B: People will protest like this anyway. Is the goal only to stop WBS? If that's the case; Why infringe on constitutional rights?

C: This only affects those who agree to peaceably assemble, and these people will be the bearers of this type of legislation. Those who "are up to no good" will always do no good, because their intended goal is to not give a crap about 'rules' and will always circumvent them or outright deny them.

This only affects law-abiding citizens, as is always the case.

reply to post by SyphonX
This only effects people that want to protest at Military funerals. Is was quite specific, was it not?

“The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the captive audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech” (Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 487 (1988)

Grievers cannot avoid the demonstration while at the funeral. They should not be forced to view or listen to it unless they have the choice to leave.

Now try to tell me a family has the choice to walk away from a loved one's funeral, please.

Furthermore peaceably assembling only extends to public property, which most cemeteries are not.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


I wondered about that issue. Was there other people who protested funerals, in various states not from that particular church? I remember being surprised when I saw videos of the hatefulness, I am just not used to seeing that stuff. I guess what I am asking is, was that one big family under a church banner who did those protests?
The whole thing was so bizarre to me... I didn't imagine people would be so insensitive to people in mourning, I guess it's still hard to believe it was real.

Although I absolutely, positively HATE Westboro Baptist Church, I don't think passing this law is the "reich" thing to do. It puts a limit on free speech and that is something that shouldn't be touched.

However.... passing a law that would allow the funeral mourners to use the "stand your ground" laws on an emotional basis may be effective and would only take ONE instance to put an end to the Westboro bunch. That would be a much more effective law and also do away with the group that has sown hatred throughout the country.

....just sayin

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

However.... passing a law that would allow the funeral mourners to use the "stand your ground" laws on an emotional basis may be effective and would only take ONE instance to put an end to the Westboro bunch.

Okay, thats so wrong...the image that gives.

I can't help but think of the Honor Guard and Naval Escort at my father's funeral and the Salute...kinda lowering aim..and maybe grinning widely...and OH MY they wouldn't ..

21 shots makes for... Oh nvm.. err.. sorry.

This is an issue that our Forefathers never thought would occur. That being...certain people regardless of what Rights are afforded then by the Constitution and Bill of Rights...using these documents as a screen to be so vicious as to harass a grieving Military Family or any Grieving Family for that matter.

It is sad that a law had to be passed. Split Infinity

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.

Today on several threads I have seen comments like, your rights begin where mine end" which is not true...

our rights overlap and are dependent on another's right... for if we take away the right of the people or organizations we don't like then we have trimmed our own liberties by denying others the same right.....

well that is my thought about how our rights depend on another's rights, what do you think?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

However.... passing a law that would allow the funeral mourners to use the "stand your ground" laws on an emotional basis may be effective and would only take ONE instance to put an end to the Westboro bunch.

Okay, thats so wrong...the image that gives.

I can't help but think of the Honor Guard and Naval Escort at my father's funeral and the Salute...kinda lowering aim..and maybe grinning widely...and OH MY they wouldn't ..

21 shots makes for... Oh nvm.. err.. sorry.

I GUARANTEE they wouldn't show up to protest at another one!!

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

However.... passing a law that would allow the funeral mourners to use the "stand your ground" laws on an emotional basis may be effective and would only take ONE instance to put an end to the Westboro bunch.

Okay, thats so wrong...the image that gives.

I can't help but think of the Honor Guard and Naval Escort at my father's funeral and the Salute...kinda lowering aim..and maybe grinning widely...and OH MY they wouldn't ..

21 shots makes for... Oh nvm.. err.. sorry.

I GUARANTEE they wouldn't show up to protest at another one!!

I remember when they planned to show up in Arizona.

Seems they had second thoughts LOL

In the serious context of this. It isn't the distance I have a problem with, or ever have. Local laws should address much of that anyway for trespassing, menacing and harassment if they get too bad about it. It's this, guys:

According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service.

No, that isn't right. How about they announce tomorrow that protesters are welcome in Tampa, they can protest right to the doors even....starting 2 hours after the Convention closes for the night and until 2 hours before it opens. Hey, you all have your rights, huh? You get to protest. Sure do...for a whole couple hours in the wee hours of the morning.

.....and what makes Westboro any different to a Washington lawmaker and their pens then any other annoyance they want to make go away.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wonder... Why didn't they extend this to the other funerals WBC protests?

They should.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


Bout time someone knocked a dent in the hat of those fake christians. Theyre going to be pissed because they have less opportunities to sue for cash.