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

Take THAT, racist, sexist, facist, un-American, uneducated bigots!

Second line.

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by iwilliam
I am a man of such strong principle I have extreme difficulty standing behind censorship in any capacity. But I have to say I really, really, really dislike this group, and this was a deserved move, for all involved.


While I don't blindly support the military any more than I support hateful church groups, IMO one should have a certain amount of respect for the soldier, and their families, even if not for the institution. These are people. People whose families have fought, believing in this country, regardless of the real agenda of their puppet masters.

I almost take this as proof that god exists. Or maybe that he feels the same way about westboro baptist as the rest of us.

While (and this is an important point) I do not endorse the limitation of freedoms by the government, especially in areas of free speech, I have seen these people go too far. Some of their tactics could be considered harrassment. Kudos to congress for doing this. Just don't ever do it again.

edit on 4-8-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)

Exactly, they're not protesting, they're harassing people - most of the time, their protests have nothing to do with the people they're protesting against. They've been banned from ever entering the U.K. and I think every country should ban them, including their own U.S. which they seem to hate so much. I bet they'd have a ton of fun if they had no place to live.

Exactly. When you think about it, no one's free speech is being removed. They can write on their blog whatever the hell they want and say and feel and think and believe whatever they want. But if they continually do nothing but harass people during funerals, why shouldn't this be legally recognized as harassment?

The laws could be changed all kinds of ways to accommodate ending WBC's attacks as well as preserving free speech. They could just make funerals altogether defined as something different, etc.

The US's definition of free speech discludes Hate Rallying. One of the few things we got right. And that's all the Westboro Baptist church does. I don't know if we should -BLAME- them, though... After all, they can't really help their ignorance when it was their community which instilled it upon them.

reply to post by HairlessApe


Then explain how the KKK have rallies all the time....... Among other hate groups...... Their speech is as protected as the gay rights groups are.

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by DarthOej
Passing any kind of legislation like this is wrong from both ends. First, it will only give these WBC loons validation. Putting them in the national spotlight AGAIN is just what they want. Why do we keep helping their cause? Second, and most important, this is a huge slap in the face to the very people this law is meant to protect. These soldiers died in the line of duty. Part of that duty, as far as I know, is protecting and upholding the Constitution and the freedoms it grants us. Sort of hypocritical that some people want to usurp it just to protect feelings. Would they want that?

I am having a trouble finding any soldiers proudly cheering about how they will die for your right to libel, threaten, or harass dead people and their grieving loved ones. Why is that?

You all act like free speech means you can always say anything you want anywhere you want. That is not the case.

Can you give specific examples of that type of behavior? I haven't heard of any. I don't know if this is a case of shouting fire in a crowded theater.



As another poster said, show us where in the constitution is says that people have the right to not have their feelings hurt.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Thankfully some of you realize this is unconstitutional.

I'll be remembering who stood up and spoke out against freedom because they disagreed with the opinions of others based mostly on religious reasons.

Thanks to the few posters who stood up for freedom today and defended the rights of people that we don't agree with.

The anti-freedom crowd should be ashamed of the despicable nature they exhibit, and the cheap and underhanded tactics they are using to try to get back at their political opponents.

Whats worse?
Westboro trolling folks?
Or trampling free speech for everyone?

Shouldn't you folks have at least waited till winter time when it's cold to burn the constitution in the fireplace?

Okay...a tad bit dramatic, but point taken. So how does harassing a fellow citizen fit in with the idea of petitioning the Government for redress of grievences? Where does the First Amendement and "congress shall make no law" leave off and harassment and libel step in? I disagree with congress passing this law because "congress shall make no law" is part of the first amendment, but WBC should not have protection from a civil trial either. In the days of the FF, they would have been thrashed or worse by the relatives of the deceased. Now, citizens are supposed to settle their difference in court. SCOTUS was wrong, IMHO, by overturning that civil case against them a few years back because the First Amendment does not, nor should it not, address civil suits between citizens.

I learned a lot from this thread. Views and opinion.

-SAP-

Originally posted by DarthOej
Can you give specific examples of that type of behavior?

You cannot just look up the word libel yourself? You need me to use it in a sentence for you?

I haven't heard of any. I don't know if this is a case of shouting fire in a crowded theater.

You are not sure if anyone has ever libeled someone, threatened someone before?
You have never heard of any such incidences ever happening?

As another poster said, show us where in the constitution is says that people have the right to not have their feelings hurt.

edit on 6-8-2012 by DarthOej because: Typo

Show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to not get punched in the face for what makes you happy.

Again, I do not care about hurt feelings. I care about the fact that while there are plants you cannot grow, weapons you cannot own, etc. etc. and you all just quietly accept that crap you are here fighting for a right not one of you needs or knows why you would ever want.

I very much want to see Westboro go away and never be heard from again, but I just can't justify making a law that does have an effect on Free Speech and our Bill of Rights to do it.

I've seen several ask "how would this effect free speech" or "make it for funerals only" but you KNOW that someone, somewhere will use that loophole to cause more issues and possibly take away more rights from us.

If we let this go through, who's to say the next one won't be something about protesting at a political rally or speaking out at a city council meeting or something we think of as extremely simple and basic as far as our rights go. It would set a precedent and precedents are used to take away more freedom.

This is not the correct route to take to deal with Westboro. The Patriot guard is taking the right approach, the Silent Witnesses in PA are taking the right approach, the groups that intercede to "shield" the family with their own presence and large banners or flags to block the view for the good of the family are taking the right approach.

What's to keep Westboro themselves from staging a huge "protest" of their own by claiming to be burrying our Constitution or burying our "souls" and "sending them to hell" where they claim all of them belong or making some kind of extreme statement of that sort? What's to keep them from having what they refer to as a 'funeral' that is actually something completely different just for their own evil little purposes? Those people LOVE to use legal loopholes to cause a problem for others, it's how they make a living. They play on every possible emotion they can in order to get a rise out of people, get them to react, then sue them for violence. That's their MO.

Making a law against it isn't the answer, people coming together is the answer and working within our own rights to freedom in order to make their actions ineffective.

I still say they could be classified as agressors in the emotional sense and the stand your ground laws could be applied in some way, shape or form, but that too would set a precedent. It ends up boiling down to whether someone is willing to be a martyr or not. Are they willing to stand up against the evil group and suffer the legal consequences such as a personal lawsuit from punching them in the face. I wouldn't advocate facing murder charges for blowing them away, but there are some who would possibly take it to that point if they're allowed to persist. Fortunately, the Patriot Guard and other groups do step in and make a big difference. Our thanks should go out to them for the good they do.

There has to be a different answer that doesn't affect our Bill of Rights in order to deal with that horrible group.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
I very much want to see Westboro go away and never be heard from again, but I just can't justify making a law that does have an effect on Free Speech and our Bill of Rights to do it.

Does it bother you that the WBC cannot come on my property and express themselves? There are laws against that. Is it killing their right to free speech?

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
I very much want to see Westboro go away and never be heard from again, but I just can't justify making a law that does have an effect on Free Speech and our Bill of Rights to do it.

Does it bother you that the WBC cannot come on my property and express themselves? There are laws against that. Is it killing their right to free speech?

Come on guy, freedom of speech wouldn't apply on your property. The 1st amendment doesn't give people the right to trespass.

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by DarthOej
Can you give specific examples of that type of behavior?

You cannot just look up the word libel yourself? You need me to use it in a sentence for you?


You are not sure if anyone has ever libeled someone, threatened someone before?
You have never heard of any such incidences ever happening?

I was referring to WBC members specifically.

Show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to not get punched in the face for what makes you happy.

Again, I do not care about hurt feelings. I care about the fact that while there are plants you cannot grow, weapons you cannot own, etc. etc. and you all just quietly accept that crap you are here fighting for a right not one of you needs or knows why you would ever want.

That's a poor example. We have laws that punish those who commit assault on another person.


Ignore them, stage a counter protest, whatever. Are you saying that we don't need or want the right to protest?

edit on 10-8-2012 by DarthOej because: (no reason given)