Military Funeral Picketing partially banned, WBC are tools.

[SonicWaffle]

Not being allowed to protest at a funeral is forbidding a certain form, not content of protest.

Hmmm. I'm not so sure about that. After all, it's the content that's causing all the ruckus. If a group were to protest a funeral to complain about the cost of bread, it would be disrespectful but more confusing than upsetting.

Since nobody else (as far as I know, and certainly not as prolifically) protests the funerals of dead soldiers to spread messages of hate, this law was clearly aimed at the WBC. I very much doubt it would have happened had their subject matter and "tactful" protest style been less offensive or controversial. Ergo, it is the content being censored, albeit by laying down a blanket rule that covers other content too. The specific purpose is to censor the content of the WBC, not the form of the protest - that's just the method being used to censor the content.

The example was a bit wierd, I agree...change it to "...run into congress and yell 'Donuts are healthy!' "

Well, firstly that probably breaks a bunch of other rules. I'm sure they don't let people run into congress while it's in session, so you'd have tresspassing at least. The speech itself would not be censored, but it would also not be allowed to be heard on other grounds, namely the (presumably illegal) means of entry.

Were you to stand outside congress and say the same thing, no problem, unless some passing fitness nuts overhear and decide to beat you up for your lies. Saying "doughnuts are healthy" is essentially a harmless statement (although, given context - the doctor of a morbidly obese child telling them that doughnuts are a healthy snack could be argued to be directly damaging the child's health - it could be seen otherwise) and therefore doesn't need to be censored. That doesn't mean that my original point was wrong; we all accept censorship of our speech, the only variance is to what degree we believe it should be enforced.

 

[Frission]

This is such a huge non-issue.

I seriously do not understand how this ever became anything more than a private issue.

If I owned a cemetery, my policy would be that, during a funeral, only funeral viewers or people visiting other graves are allowed on my property. The WBC would never be allowed on my property during a funeral unless they had buried family members there.

Can someone explain why EVERY FUCKING CEMETERY IN EXISTENCE doesn't already do this? Can someone explain why you (generic parents), with a dead son or daughter, would be retarded enough to pick a funeral home that doesn't have such a policy and that you know will be picketed BECAUSE of this lack of a policy?

Can someone please explain this?

There is no protection of free speech while on someone else's property, so how this ever became an issue is far beyond me.

I seriously see no one at fault here besides those in charge of the cemeteries and the parents that clearly can't make good decisions, and see absolutely no reason for the government to get involved in a civil manner.

Actually the WBC stands 30 meters away or so from the funerals. Not on public property, but close enough to be heard. Technically what they were doing was legal. Now it isn't.

Do you really think that the family members of the dead soldiers think "Gee, they're hateful, but I won't do anything about it"? Do you really think that they haven't used any measures?

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Canada has it easy. We just tell the WBC they'll be arrested and charged to the full extent of the law if they pull their BS up north. And this is from the Harper conservative government.

I don't understand why America is so gung-ho on freedom of speech. Canada and europe have for the most part banned this type of nonsense and are internationally considered to be more "free" then the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index

Yes I knwo this isn't some be all end all thing, but it does show some interesting data.

And we still have freedom of speech in the great white north. Just saying

 

[SecondPrize]

I think it's our right to assemble here more than freedom of speech. This is no different from "free speech zones" at the major political party conventions. Despite the names, these are just restrictions on our freedom to assemble, railroading protesters into certain areas.
To answer your question, yes, freedom of speech applies to bastards too and no we shouldn't restrict the speech of bastards. In the case of WBC, I'm all for shitting all over their lives in every way possible, but the government should not restrict their speech.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

I'm shocked that there haven't been mass counter-protests from Christians yet.

Evidently you missed the general counter-protest where even the smallest ones have had upwards of 20,000 people at them.

Indeed, I haven't heard a thing about them. Got a link? The only ones I've heard of have been by bikers and college students.

And the Patriot Guard doesnt count? :/

Whatever, here was one for Them being blocked at Aurora. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church_n_1693548.html]

 

[chadachada123]

Laws can and should change all the time, based on the changes in the society they are meant to protect. It's already quite idiotic - and completely contrary to the wishes of the ones who drafted it - that your constitution hasn't had an update in the last 150 years, even though parts of it are hopelessly outdated.

Errr...what you said is laughably wrong.

Our Constitution has been updated 27 times, and as recently as 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States

It was intended to be static except when changes are obviously needed and agreed upon by a super-majority of the states. Aside from the first ten, which were passed as a set and were intended to limit the power of the federal government to prevent federal abuse, few changes were made while the founding fathers were still alive until after the Civil War 60 years later.

What constitutes a basic right is not something that Congress should be able to vote on from day-to-day, it belongs under a Constitutional protection that would require said super-majority state approval to eliminate. This was done on purpose to prevent corruption and to prevent Congress from taking power from the states illegally.

If it was really such an obviously needed change, then it should be incredibly easy to get an amendment passed to limit free speech in this way. That is what the founding fathers would have intended. They would not have intended for us to ignore the Supreme Law of the Land when there is a perfectly legal method of fixing this 'hole.' It took an amendment to give women the right to vote, and to make 18 the legal voting age, and those were in recent years, so it shouldn't be too hard to amend the constitution once again to allow states to decide for themselves how to treat funerals. If such a change were made, THEN it would cease to be an unconstitutional infringement of Phelp's free speech to bar him from protesting.

You don't even seem to recognize that the Constitution by itself does not give a large amount of power to the federal government, because most of the power was supposed to be left to the states, somewhat like the UN today, collaborating only for military action and for money. Unfortunately, today's government has no problem with violating the Constitution, and so our federal government has far more power than the founding fathers intended.

It's pretty clear that you don't know much at all about United States history or even how the United States government functions.

It was not against the wishes of the founding fathers to not amend the constitution often (despite the fact that it IS amended quite often for what was meant to be a primarily static document).

 

[BOOM headshot65]

I say we nuke Kansas out of orbit.

ಠ_ಠ

I dont care if you are joking. Kansas is still my home, and I am proud to be from here. I will not let her good name be ruined by abunch of religious crazies that we hate more than the rest of the country.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Look, I'm all for fredom of speech, but sometimes, you just gotta know where to draw the line... Fuck the WBC.

 

[SonicWaffle]

I'm shocked that there haven't been mass counter-protests from Christians yet.

Evidently you missed the general counter-protest where even the smallest ones have had upwards of 20,000 people at them.

Indeed, I haven't heard a thing about them. Got a link? The only ones I've heard of have been by bikers and college students.

And the Patriot Guard doesnt count? :/

Whatever, here was one for Them being blocked at Aurora. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church_n_1693548.html]

The Patriot Guard are who I was thinking of when I said bikers - perhaps I'm confusing them with someone else?

The story, while heart-warming, doesn't say anything about it being a specific group or religion. Just a group of local people. My point is that, as we have Muslims marching in anti-terrorism protests, why aren't there Christian groups on the front lines blocking everything the WBC tries to do?

 

[BOOM headshot65]

The Patriot Guard are who I was thinking of when I said bikers - perhaps I'm confusing them with someone else?

No, the Patriot Guard are the main guys who follow Westboro everywhere they go. I was just wondering why you said they didnt count.

The story, while heart-warming, doesn't say anything about it being a specific group or religion. Just a group of local people. My point is that, as we have Muslims marching in anti-terrorism protests, why aren't there Christian groups on the front lines blocking everything the WBC tries to do?

Except you have to remember, most polls say that 70% of Americans identify as Christians (of varying sects such as Catholic, Lutheran, etc). Even if they dont explicitly say that they are christian, you can assume most of the people are, especially when they protest in the Midwest or South (considering they consistanly score high in people who identify as Christian)

 

[the doom cannon]

If WBC gets their protesting permit, then I guess they can. But if they don't, throw their asses in jail

 

[SonicWaffle]

The law doesn't specifically target them. It targets ANYONE who would protest at a funeral. The WBC is just the only group that has the audacity to do such a thing.

That's exactly the point, though - they are the ones only who do it, ergo the only reason to make a law banning it. They can't claim that they're being specifically discriminated against (although I'm sure they will anyway) because the law applies to anyone, but it's clearly created to target them because who else does it affect? Who else has caused such controversy that they warrant a law banning protesting at funerals?

On another note, what are the 'public property laws' in the US? Here, public property is always owned by someone, either the state, the city district or privately owned, and each owner is responsible for what happens. If you protest (or even do any kind of activity-like getting signatures for a petition) you have to notify whoever is in charge.

I haven't a clue, I live in the UK

And besides...yelling "****** soldier! Burn in hell!" is more like defamation than actual some form of political expression. Defamation of a dead person...at their funeral.

It's an expression of their political beliefs. Just because those beliefs are so tightly tied to hating "faggots" and a genuine belief that people are burning in hell doesn't mean they have any less of a right to them. Remember, they believe these dead soldiers are God's punishment for a series of political decisions, which they disagree with.

I can call them inbred trolls, but I can also accept the fact that I wouldn't be able to yell that at them when they're burying a deceased relative.

You could yell that at them. You're just - hopefully - a decent person, so you won't. Therein lies the difference. We all have the freedom to act like cunts, but most of us don't usually push it.