Military Funeral Picketing partially banned, WBC are tools.

[BishopofAges]

I don't even feel like arguing my point so I am going to cut 65% of it down to the bits and pieces that mean something.

"It was always my understanding that 'Freedom' ment the ability to do anything you wanted, and in the US this 'Freedom' ment that, EXCEPT when you step all over someone else's Freedom. It is my belief that the dead have a right to PEACE and a QUIET funeral/services, as do their families. Everyone has a right to happiness, EXCEPT when it stomps all over the happiness of others. Finally, how does picketing the DEAD further your CAUSE?! If anything I should say they are PRO GAY because of how much damage they are doing to anti-gay causes..."

 

[theultimateend]

I don't see why hate monger picketing at funerals can't be charged under harassment and disturbing the peace. If I started screaming and raving how someone should burn in hell while standing in a public area, I'd go to jail. Yet, it makes it okay and a matter of 'freedom of speech' if a group does it? If you are saying so-and-so should die etc etc, why isn't that considered illegal to do when done in a group?

This has always been my question.

It seems like it should be illegal.

 

[Artemis923]

If I had a military buddy who died and WBC showed up, I'd take some jail time in exchange for stomping the shit out of them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I don't have the freedom to punch you in the face.

 

[senordesol]

yes they would kick me out but for completely different reasons, it would be for Civil disturbance . but the WBC weren?t doing anything illegal a US court already said that TWICE !

And the court got it wrong if you ask me. The freedom of speech doesn't extend to such things explicitly, and the interest of the families is much greater than that of the WBC.

Then again, not the first time a US court goes totally weird, forgets its decisions affect the real world, doesn't weigh the interests of both parties involved, and passes a ruling that's just completely besides reality.

It doesn't need to extend to such things explicitly. The Constitution states that congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech or to peaceably assemble.

So long as the WBC remains on public property or has a permit for demonstration (Which they always do), then they are not doing anything illegal. The court got it right.

 

[Asita]

I think you need to look up what harassment actually means http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/harassment.cfm

They aren?t saying at the funeral as I?ve said they are outside of the graveyard surrounded by cops, when they say ?god hates fags? is not harassment nor is it defamatory speech it?s just stupid .
And as much as you don?t like it saying ? I'm glad that ****** is dead ? isn?t illegal.

Actually, the only reason they're saying it at the distance they have been is because courts ruled that protests within a certain distance of a funeral are not permissible, directly in response to WBC's actions. This started with several states passing laws, and on a federal level was first dictated by the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act (Effective May 29, 2006), which prohibits protests within 300 feet (90 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. The bill passed 428 to 3 in the House of Representatives and unanimously in the Senate. Additionally, Arizona passed a similar emergency bill in 2011, after WBC publically announced its plans to picket the funeral of a nine year old victim of the Tuscan Shooting.

On a similar note, it's worth noting that rulings regarding the legallity of WBC's actions have gone back and forth, with several courts finding them guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and defamation of character. Granted, those rulings have since been overturned, but that very fact would seem to acknowledge that the limits/extent of free speech laws are a murky area at best.

Given their history though and various stated plans, I'd venture to guess we're actually being overprotective about our speech laws in recent years.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I don't see why hate monger picketing at funerals can't be charged under harassment and disturbing the peace. If I started screaming and raving how someone should burn in hell while standing in a public area, I'd go to jail. Yet, it makes it okay and a matter of 'freedom of speech' if a group does it? If you are saying so-and-so should die etc etc, why isn't that considered illegal to do when done in a group?

I really don't see why we don't just apply this to funerals in general, to be honest with you. It's the very definition of harassment. I know you're not allowed to go to the Westboro Baptist church without being married into the family, so why should there be a double standard.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

--

 

[Berithil]

Just came across this little article. Thought it would be relevant.

http://www.examiner.com/article/westboro-baptist-church-responds-to-new-military-funeral-legislation

?We obey the law of man,? Roper says, ?even if we think it is unconstitutional.?

Lolwut? Do they realise the constitution is written by MAN, not God? So they hate America, except for the parts that allow them to be piles of miserable vomitous mass*

*cookie for reference*

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Hey so long as they're allowed to SOMEWHERE protest, I see no harm in establishing a "bubble" around all funerals, not just military ones.

I really wish the media would stop paying attention to these assholes. It's barely news anymore.

 

[Asita]

Sorry for the short answer but I want to go to sleep
anyway I know this, but while I can see a state claiming Civil disturbance when the WBC are standing 5 meters way from the grave I think the current laws are enough and that adding an extra limit is just an attempt to censor them .

Well good night then, but let me go ahead and respond. That's exactly the mindset that led to my comment about us being overprotective of our speech laws, and are applying them to things beyond the intended scope of those laws and which do NOT actually deserve protection. Were I to slander someone, would my defamation of their character be defensible by touting 'free speech'? No. Is it censorship to make that ruling? Well, yes, technically the term is accurate in this context, though despite the terms baggage that is not intrinsically a bad thing. In fact, it's commonly applied in any number of forms, including by yourself to yourself and by any number of external factors. For the most part, these are benign and sometimes even beneficial in function. It is unwarranted or excessive censorship that is problematic.

And mind you, with regards to freedom of speech/expression, limitations have always existed. US law, for instance, typically does NOT include obscenity, defamation, incitement, fighting words, fraud or slander/libel as protected forms of expression. If WBC's actions can be classified as any of these, then they are not covered by free speech laws and by all accounts should not be defended as such. Especially if malicious intent/intentional infliction of emotional distress can be proven. At that point we are no longer defending freedom of speech, but instead promoting bullying.

 

[chadachada123]

snip snap

snipity

Oh, absolutely, I don't have a problem with lawmakers attempting to pass amendments in order to make this kind of stuff illegal. My only concern is that if/when this is done, it has to be done legally, through the amendment process. I think that we're both in agreement on that, and I'm sorry about that tangent.

Whether or not I personally would support such an amendment...meh, it's irrelevant to me.

As for power structure, I personally think that the United States is just too damn big to have centrally-focused power. We don't have nearly enough personal representation in the US government today compared to EVERY European country and even Australia. But that's a discussion for another time.

(Small edit, in this case, 'lawmakers' are not actually our elected congressmen, but the states themselves. For an amendment to pass, 3/4 of the states must agree, not 3/4 of our congressmen. Our power structure is...interesting, and was meant to have 'checks and balances' to prevent any group from becoming too powerful)

 

[Twilight_guy]

They are still free to protest whatever they like, they just have to do it a bit further away. Essentially, it enforces adding a respectful distance away from the ceremony. Since it doesn't limited there ability to speak only where they can set up there protest, this seems fine. It's always an iffy issue when you have to limit the first amendment in some way though. Also, if they essentially hat everything and everyone, then why the heck do they obey US laws? They believe in an angry vengeful god that has laws different from how most laws are set up, why not just do what you want and follow God's laws, why conform to traditional secular forms of protest?

 

[Faladorian]

So your saying their behavior is bad ? ??? thanks I didn?t know that . /sarcasm
Now explain to me how you go from ?that?s bad? to ?it?s ok to ban what they do ??
Because I don?t like the WBC I think what they do is morally indefensible and I won?t shed a single tear if they die in car crash .
BUT that doesn?t mean I think they should be censored

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"-Voltaire

You're not banning it outright, you're banning it in a certain place. Do you see what I'm saying? Believe me, I'm a proponent of free speech and I have actually quoted Voltaire in the same way to defuse arguments.

It's more of a situation of "No Shoes, No Service," wherein something that is normally perfectly fine is prohibited for the sake of formality.

In a funeral home the ability to kick people out is reserved. For outdoor funerals it is not, and I think asking people to simply wait until the funeral is over to start their slander is not unreasonable. It's basically the best way to allow somebody to exclude somebody else from an outdoor event. It's outdoors, but not public.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Freedom of speech ends when you start impeding the lives of others. I just see this as a goverment-mandated restraining order on a band of assholes.

Should I not be free to say that evolution is true, lest I impede the lives of creationists? It might challenge their beliefs or confuse their children, and I doubt they want that.

You can say/believe evolution is true all you want, you just can't camp outside of creationists' houses until they agree with you.

But they would argue that my saying it is impeding their lives, and affecting their happiness and religious freedom. Hell, I've actually seen this argument on various forums; atheists shouldn't be allowed to bother decent God-fearing folk with their vicious lies, and should stay in the closet and never talk about what they believe lest they upset people.

Alright, though, putting that example behind us, how about the teaching of evolution in schools? Couldn't they argue that a teacher telling their children that evolution is the truth is impeding the lives of their children?

 

[Darkmantle]

I'm fine with this, your freedom ends where another's begins, and the I think people should have the right to a quiet, respectful funeral for their fallen.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Christianity is literally the most common religion on the planet, with over 2 BILLION members. Odds are, someone knows someone who is christian, and knows better than to think they are like WBC.

Islam is the second most common religion on the planet, with over 1 billion followers. How many people have you personally encountered (hell, there are plenty on this very forum!) who think all Muslims are evil, terrorists, followers of Shariah law or what-have-you because the only version of Islam they see on the news is a horrible one? How many think mosques are full of bomb plots, Muslims are trying to breed out white Europeans and that the religion as a whole is evil?

It's silly to think that the WBC aren't having a similar effect. A quick glance at any internet forum, whether related to religion or not, will show that the common perception of Christianity appears to be shifting further and further towards "they're all like Fred Phelps", and the fact that no organised groups of Christians seem to be standing between them and their victims only helps the spread of that perception.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Christianity is literally the most common religion on the planet, with over 2 BILLION members. Odds are, someone knows someone who is christian, and knows better than to think they are like WBC.

Islam is the second most common religion on the planet, with over 1 billion followers. How many people have you personally encountered (hell, there are plenty on this very forum!) who think all Muslims are evil, terrorists, followers of Shariah law or what-have-you because the only version of Islam they see on the news is a horrible one? How many think mosques are full of bomb plots, Muslims are trying to breed out white Europeans and that the religion as a whole is evil?

Zero. Most people around here know the difference between the extremo musliums in the Mid-East and the sane ones everywhere else, even the ones like me that want to invade the Mid-East to rid them of terrorist and dictators.

It's silly to think that the WBC aren't having a similar effect. A quick glance at any internet forum, whether related to religion or not, will show that the common perception of Christianity appears to be shifting further and further towards "they're all like Fred Phelps", and the fact that no organised groups of Christians seem to be standing between them and their victims only helps the spread of that perception.

I place that more on the fact that the internet is largely athiest, and has a distrubing number of straight-out anti-thiest. They will look for the first sign of trouble then say "Look at that. They are ALL like that." And its not just this. Political affliation, lifestyle choices, etc. It will always happen.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I'm sure that if I went there and started screaming at people and told them all that they should die, I'd be charged for something. Why can't the WBC be charged for harassment? They are free to say whatever the hell they want elsewhere. Why don't they get the hint no one likes them?

I wondered this too. I looked up harassment clauses and i found to technically be classed as harassment the victim must be harassed on three separate occasions by the perp. But if its a different victim that count doesnt carry forward. Im free to go and jab everyone in the street once or yell at them but if i do it THREE times im committing an offence. Harassment is focussed on a repeat verbal assault. They can get around it by never protesting the same target family more than three times.