# Free speech violation or 'About time'?



## Monadnock (May 29, 2006)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060529/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_1



> "In advance of his speech and a wreath-laying at America's most hallowed burial ground for military heroes, Bush signed the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act." This was largely in response to the activities of a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming the deaths symbolized God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.
> 
> The new law bars protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a national cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery. This restriction applies an hour before until an hour after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison."


----------



## Henderson (May 29, 2006)

Alright...I'll be the first to bite on this one.

I say "About Time".  The people have a right to protest wars, and other things they disagree with that our government does.  However, tarnishing an already difficult situation like a funeral service is just plain wrong.


----------



## green meanie (May 29, 2006)

Agreed. I say it's about time too. :asian:


----------



## stone_dragone (May 29, 2006)

Another vote for the "About Time" camp.  

Although it may _seem_ on the outside to the uninitiated that this is a freedom of speech violation, the supreme court has time and time again demonstrated that restrictions placed on "Time, Place and Manner" of protests and other vehicles of speech are *not* unconstitutional.  Such regulations promote peace and order while protecting those who are expressing themselves.

Although I don't agree with their methods and I think that _what they say their message is_ has been lost in the anti-gay/anti-soldier retoric, I still support their Constitutional Right to present their ideas in a peaceful manner.  

Even I, a soldier, have mixed feelings about this.  Personally I think that it is each individual state's responsibility and power to make such a law within their own borders and that the federal government, although doing the right thing, ultimately took a little more power from the state governments.  But that's not the issue.

Final word: Point, Soldiers.  

Score: Soldiers - 3, nutjobs from Kansas - 0, bow here, bow to each other.


----------



## BrandiJo (May 29, 2006)

About time, show some respect at a funural is just wrong, you do not have to agree with how or why the person died or even how they lived but let the dead be put to rest in peace


----------



## Paul B (May 29, 2006)

About time. 

I have 3 cousins fighting in Iraq as we speak, if... GOD FORBID..something happened and some nutjobs showed up in protest..there'd be more funerals to plan. That's all I have to say.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 29, 2006)

solution #2 - Suprise Gay pride parades at all their important church functions.

Anyways, about time.  They can say whatever they want, but protesting funerals is just wrong.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (May 29, 2006)

About time.  Free speech is important; but, not stupid free speech, which seems to be the most popular aspect currently.


----------



## Kacey (May 29, 2006)

About time - there are times and places for public protest, but funerals are not one of them.  The families have enough to think about without having to deal with people who want to turn a solemn occasion into a circus.


----------



## michaeledward (May 29, 2006)

I am going to say this is a free speech violation. 

I harbour no positive feelings for those who would protest at a funeral. I can't even imagine why one would want to do such a thing. 

But, this is a further erosion of the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Coming as it does from President Bush, I am not surprise.

And, a $100,000.00 fine? Upon the first challenge before a court, the penalty will get the law thrown out.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 29, 2006)

No, peacful assembly is fine, but respect needs to be there. The punishements seem a little extreme, and it's raher sad that such a law is needed.  I would have liked to think people would have enough respect to not protest a funeral.

What essentially comes down to a anti-gay protest at a funeral, saying the person died because of tolerance of gays is extremely poor taste, the family of the soldier is going threw a rough enough time, they shouldn't have to deal with that.


----------



## Brother John (May 29, 2006)

About time!!!!

Long past due as far as I'm concerned.

Your Brother
John


----------



## TonyMac (May 29, 2006)

People should have the right to protest wherever and whenever. People should also have the right to remove anyone blocking a public road or sidewalk, interfering with their business or creating exessive noise near their home by just about any means possible.


----------



## michaeledward (May 29, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> No, peacful assembly is fine, but respect needs to be there. The punishements seem a little extreme, and it's raher sad that such a law is needed. I would have liked to think people would have enough respect to not protest a funeral.
> 
> What essentially comes down to a anti-gay protest at a funeral, saying the person died because of tolerance of gays is extremely poor taste, the family of the soldier is going threw a rough enough time, they shouldn't have to deal with that.


 
It is unfair to argue from the General to the Specific. To say that such protests should not occur because it is a soldier fighting for a nation that does not prosecut homosexuals does not consider the breadth and depth of the order. What exception will be tolerable, or not tolerable next time.

Are National Cemetaries public spaces? 
Don't all citizens have the right to enter them? 
Don't all citizens have the right to be on the public roads?

And, then, how exactly does one legislate 'Respect' (Andrew Green, you state, "respect needs to be there"). How does one legislate acceptable actions that demonstrate 'Respect' and not-acceptable actions that demonstrate 'Respect'.  

Once we have figured out how to legislate appropriate behavior to demonstrate Respect, how then, do any of us Protest something, anything?

This rule is overbroad and, quite probably, unconstitutional. It leads to an an authoritarion government. 

Quietly, peace by peace, we are giving away those things that make us Americans.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 29, 2006)

_t's raher sad that such a law is needed. I would have liked to think people would have enough respect to not protest a funeral._

I agree completely, and this was running through my mind as I read these posts.  Such a law should never have been considered if people were actually acting with any sort of civility and respect.

One thing that occurs to me is that most adults understand general rules of socially acceptable behavior.  With children you establish rules of "do this" and "don't do this" and those rules are not just the end of the story but in seeigng examples of what is allowed and what is not, it establishs general character of how one is to act when there is not an actual rule in place saying what you should or shouldn't do.  Hopefully by the time a child has become an adult, they have that character established so they don't *need* rules of "do this, don't do that" for issues such as simple curteousy and common deceny in relating to other adults.

Without getting into whether the law is 'consitutional' or not, I'm saddened that our society has gotten to a point that this would be an issue.  I think we'd have a lot less laws upopn which we questioned the constitionality if people would simple remember to act like adults


----------



## Sam (May 29, 2006)

I'm going to agree with MichaelEdward on this one.

These people who do this make me absoloutely sick. I personally would like to shoot them. But my personal opinon doesn't matter. 

I think its safe to say the vast majority of people are sickened by this. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. It seems to me, by doing this, we have helped them. We've made martyrs of them. There is a LOTof anti-bush citizens in the US, and some of them may now lend their ear to these idiots.

One of the great things about being american is you have the right to make yourself look like an ***. We should not deny them their right.

How does the old saying go?
"I may fundamentally disagree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it"
-Voltaire


----------



## Andrew Green (May 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And, then, how exactly does one legislate 'Respect' (Andrew Green, you state, "respect needs to be there"). How does one legislate acceptable actions that demonstrate 'Respect' and not-acceptable actions that demonstrate 'Respect'.



You can't, however you can legislate against blatant acts of disrespect.  A protest of a funeral is wrong, I don't care who's funeral it is or why they died, you don't protest funerals.

And making it a anti-gay thing is IMO, also pushing hate speech.  It would be like protesting a school that had a shooting because "That's what they get for letting black students in..."

I also don't see this as a free speech issue, no one is telling them not to protest, they are being told not to do it at a funeral, which really doesn't seem all that unreasonable, public place or not this is a private time for the family and they should not have to deal with people telling them there loved one got what he deserved.


----------



## Sam (May 29, 2006)

This is a slippery slope fallacy, I will admit to using it. *However*, this line of thought makes me extremely un-easy.



			
				andrewgreen said:
			
		

> ...you can legislate against blatant acts of disrespect



Many people believe its disprespectful to be against the war at all, because we are not "supporting our soldiers". If we can outlaw this because it is disprespectful, you can begin making a case for almost anything you don't like or that makes you uncomfortable as being disrespectful.


----------



## Sam (May 29, 2006)

By the way, I would like to thank everyone so far for keeping this debate respectful and on topic.


----------



## Marginal (May 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am going to say this is a free speech violation.
> 
> I harbour no positive feelings for those who would protest at a funeral. I can't even imagine why one would want to do such a thing.


Given the the group in question is the only party actively engaging in this particular form of free speech, and that they're really only doing it to spark reasons to sue people rather than trying to say anything....

I can live with people being unable to gather and jeer at a funeral.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 29, 2006)

Sam said:
			
		

> Many people believe its disprespectful to be against the war at all, because we are not "supporting our soldiers". If we can outlaw this because it is disprespectful, you can begin making a case for almost anything you don't like or that makes you uncomfortable as being disrespectful.



You are right, but, I think it's apples and oranges.

Protesting the war is one thing, doing it at someone's funeral is another.  I think they are fine in saying that they object, and even the reasons they object.  They are even free to protest, but doing it at a funeral is an abuse of their free speech and they know it, that's why they are doing it.

If they protested at a gov't building, or in front of a military base they'd be ignored.  But by crossing that line, and doing this in at funerals, they are getting media attention.

And the best way to get rid of your right to free speech is to abuse it.


----------



## michaeledward (May 29, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Given the the group in question is the only party actively engaging in this particular form of free speech, and that they're really only doing it to spark reasons to sue people rather than trying to say anything....
> 
> I can live with people being unable to gather and jeer at a funeral.


 
There are five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constituion; Speech is one of those. Also protected by the First Amendment is the right of the people to Peaceably Assemble. Why they are assembling is totally irrelevant to the protection offered.

I never swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. But, I am loath to give it away.

Reverend Phelps has a long history of protests. Matthew Sheppard's funeral was similiarly also attended by Mr. Phelps. On that occassion his congregation carried placards saying "God Hates Fags" and "No Fags In Heaven". If his faith leads him to make such protests, in bad taste though they be, who am I to restrict him in light of the Establishment clause, the Peaceable Assembly, and Free Speech protections.

I wonder if there could be some ecclesiastic pressures brought to bear, rather than legislative?


----------



## modarnis (May 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am going to say this is a free speech violation.
> 
> I harbour no positive feelings for those who would protest at a funeral. I can't even imagine why one would want to do such a thing.
> 
> ...


 
While you would like to pin this one on Bush, public forum and non public forum free speech issues  date into at least the late 1800's when Justice Holmes wrote Mass v. Davis in 1895. Courts and scholars have wrestled with the competing interests of speech and public place.   I will limit my commentary to this type of first amendment issue.  Obviously things like conduct=speech, fighting words, and obscenity laws have also filled volumes of scholarly work.

  As early as 1941 in New Hampshire v. Cox, the Court dealt with local regulation of the time place and manner of speech.  Balancing competing interests and avoiding a chilling effect were/are certainly overriding concerns for the Court while dealing with these types of questions

The Supreme Court in its line of public forum cases dating back into the mid 1960's would disagree with you that this particular law violates the principles of the first amendment.  Governments (state, local, federal) can regulate the time place and manner of assembly for free speech as long as:

1.  The regulation is "content neutral"  so law cannot apply to a specific groups speech

2.Whether the manner of expression is incompatible with the normal activity of the  specific place at a specific time  See Grayned v. Rockford 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (case deals with protest outside a school that is in session)

3.  Regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a particular government interest  (in this case keeping a buffer around funeral site)  

So the reality is, they still have the right to say whatever they want with minimal restriction only on time place and manner


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

i say it's about time.

btw, great post modarnis.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

Sam said:
			
		

> This is a slippery slope fallacy, I will admit to using it. *However*, this line of thought makes me extremely un-easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Many people believe its disprespectful to be against the war at all, because we are not "supporting our soldiers". If we can outlaw this because it is disprespectful, you can begin making a case for almost anything you don't like or that makes you uncomfortable as being disrespectful.


 
protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier is wrong.  you can look at it however you want.  if the phelp's people want to protest the war, that's fine, they can do it in washington.  their actions at the soldier funerals are not protesting the war, they are protesting the soldier;  thanking God for IEDs, referring to soldiers as fags, telling them God hates them and that's why they died.  they carry signs that read the following:

-Not blessed, just cursed
-God hates fag enablers
-Thank God for maimed Marines
-God hates your tears
-Don't pray for the USA
-Thank God for dead soldiers
-Thank God for 9/11
-Thank God for Katrina
-God killed your fag son

you say it's free speech.  you say it's a violation of their rights to keep them away from funerals.  i say too bad.  i say the actions are disrespectful of the dead and their families.

what say you if you saw this activity at your closest friend's funeral?  i imagine you'd have a change of heart.


----------



## modarnis (May 29, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i say it's about time.
> 
> btw, great post modarnis.


 
One of the few semesters of law school I actually paid attention and wasn't making martial arts my highest priority


----------



## Lisa (May 29, 2006)

I am glad they can no longer cause more pain to the family and friends of the fallen soldiers.  Nothing irritates me more then people that think it is okay to inflict more pain on others and do it in the name of God.

Shame on them.


----------



## OUMoose (May 29, 2006)

I'm going to have to ride the fence on this one.  On one hand, I can agree that any legislation that risks banning public opinion on the grounds that it's not what people want to hear is a step in the wrong direction.  The right to free speech and free assembly is something that these soldiers took an oath to protect.  Once we start down that road, it will be difficult to stop, since opinions change so fast. 

On the other hand, laws (in a perfect world, I know) are meant to protect people.  In this case, the protest is causing undue grief to the family members of the deceased.  They've already lost a son/daughter/father/mother, and this group is only compounding the anguish.  Since they don't have the common decency to give these soldiers' families their due grieving period, there almost has to be some law on the books to say they can't do it at that time and place.  

I'm no fan of Bush, nor a fan of this war, and I can think of a thousand and one places to protest and speak my voice.  At the memorial service for a fallen soldier who died for what they believe in is most certainly not one of them.


----------



## Marginal (May 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There are five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constituion; Speech is one of those. Also protected by the First Amendment is the right of the people to Peaceably Assemble. Why they are assembling is totally irrelevant to the protection offered.


IMO, intentionally baiting imminent lawless action is not a viable form of free speech.


----------



## michaeledward (May 29, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> IMO, intentionally baiting imminent lawless action is not a viable form of free speech.


 
Makes you wonder why this thread was started, if not for intentionally baiting ..... 

No guess on any action the Baptist Church can take to reign in this pastor?


----------



## Marginal (May 29, 2006)

I haven't heard of any actual links to the Babtists and Phelps aside from him using a similar name for his "church".


----------



## Monadnock (May 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Makes you wonder why this thread was started, if not for intentionally baiting .....


 
He he he...it is a sticky subject.

I'm actually surprised at how many 'bout timer's' there are...which is pretty much how I feel.

They can still protest, just from a distance. Whether it is 2 feet or 200 feet from the coffin, somewhere someone is going to be offended. We have to draw the line at some common denominator.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> No guess on any action the Baptist Church can take to reign in this pastor?


 
Fred Phelps' daughter (and church spokeswoman) recently appeared on Hannity and Colmes.  she stated their "congregation" was 150 members strong, but also stated that over 90% of which are family members.  i wouldn't exactly call this a church.  more like a cult, IMO.  marriage among church members is prohibited outside the congregation.  can you say inbreeding? 

http://www.answers.com/topic/members-of-westboro-baptist-church

you can find more info at wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church_(Topeka)

From what I heard, the Southern Baptist Convention had shunned Mr. Phelps and his teachings.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed them as a hate group.

IMHO, laws and acts are passed to benefit the American people, not to enable hate driven groups to spread propoganda


----------



## michaeledward (May 29, 2006)

So, what we have (again) is a law being written for (or actually against) one constituent (Fred Phelps is Terri Schiavo). Doesn't that seem like a terrible waste of Congressional time and energy? I suppose it looks nice on the campaign literature. 

You know, if Hannity and Colmes would ignore these people, it would go a long way to making them disappear. 

Is there any 'News' value in interviewing these people?


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

this is great!



> A satire website called God Hates Shrimp (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com) was created in 2004 in response to WBC's inflamatory website. This website creates an interesting theological point, citing Leviticus 11:10, the same book and section that supposedly labels homosexuality as abomination, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you". By WBC logic, as is pointed out on the above-mentioned website, Long John Silver's and Red Lobster restaurants should likewise be relentlessly picketted.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

the Phelps people are hate-filled, ignorant slime.  allowing them the right to protest a funeral would be no different than allowing the klu klux klan to burn crosses in front of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.  they're both hate-filled motivation, lacking of everything intelligent and right.


----------



## Carol (May 29, 2006)

I almost hate to say this but....  (face twisted in pain)

Free Speech Violation.

And this is comig from someone that would probably be "over there" right now had I not been DQ'ed from joining the Navy Reserves.  

Personaly I think Phelps and his group of so-called Christians are an absolute defamation to Christianity and anyone else that believes in God or human dignity.

To denigrate and use the death of a warrior and the suffering of family and friends that loved him/her as toy to be tossed about, simply to indulge the greed they are feeling over their own hate is absolutely shameful.

Believing in the sanctity of human life, I believe that all funerals deserve such protection...whether the person or not the person died of a politically inconvenient cause.  

As much as I love, support, honor, and respect our troops....and I hope my avatar and sig file do a little bit to show that I mean this sincerely and not just blowing smoke....I can't bring myself to believe that their funerals deserve to be more protected than anyone elses.  

I do not believe this should be a federal law...because I sure as hell want my freedom of speech to tell Phelps what vile piece of demonic sacrelidge he is.  I'd like to quote scripture to him too...I think Jesus said something about loving thy neighbor...


----------



## michaeledward (May 29, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> He he he...it is a sticky subject.
> 
> I'm actually surprised at how many 'bout timer's' there are...which is pretty much how I feel.
> 
> They can still protest, just from a distance. Whether it is 2 feet or 200 feet from the coffin, somewhere someone is going to be offended. We have to draw the line at some common denominator.


 
Why would it surprise you that most people feel that protecting our service people and their families is something of value? It does not surprise me. 

I still don't think this is something that should be legislated. Writing common decency into law is sure to create some unintended consequences. 

Fred Phelps (and his followers) are reprehensible. They were reprehensible when they dealt with Matthew Sheppards death (they actually have a clock on their web page reporting how long Mr. Sheppard has been in Hell). They were reprehensible when they protested Dover, New Hampshire high school when the senior class elected a same-sex couple as 'Class Sweethearts'. They were reprehensible when they protested at Phillips Exeter Academy, also in New Hampshire. 

http://www.seacoastonline.com/2002news/1_6_e1.htm



How many of you protesting his behavior today (or approving of this targeted legislation), protested his behavior in other cases, I wonder?


----------



## Kacey (May 29, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> I almost hate to say this but....  (face twisted in pain)
> 
> Free Speech Violation.



I said 'about time' for the same reason I support similar restrictions on picketing and protesting at abortion clinics - there is a limited access/location in both instances, and the people entering the clinic or attending the funeral have no option but to listen to the picketers or avoid the location entirely.  There is a fine line between freedom of speech and harassment - and there are laws against harassment.

Because this thread intrigued me, I went looking for legal information about this issue, and found this:



> *The Captive Audience Rationale in Particular Places*  Indeed Supreme Court case law expressly permits state regulation of speech to benefit "captive" adults. For example, in the 1988 case of _Frisby v. Schultz_, the Justices upheld a Wisconsin ordinance that forbade picketers from targeting a residence. Quoting prior precedent, the Court explained: "That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech . . . does not mean we must be captives everywhere."
> Even as cases like _Frisby _reject the notion that the captive audience rationale can be confined to cases involving children, they endorse a different distinction: The captive audience concept applies only in special places. Clearly the home counts as one such place. Are there others?
> 
> Yes, there are plenty. Although the issue has yet to reach the courts, the Westboro Baptist protests strongly suggest that mourners at a funeral should count as captives. At one time or another, lower courts have also relied on the captive audience rationale to uphold restrictions on expression at military induction centers and outside abortion clinics, as well as to uphold restrictions on panhandling in the New York City subways. Meanwhile, commentators have often suggested that laws restricting verbal harassment in the workplace can be justified on the ground that employees are a captive audience of their co-workers.



Which is part of a larger article to be found at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060426.html

And I also found this:




> *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]C. Exceptions to Freedom of Expression[/SIZE][/FONT]*
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from England that was the basis of our American legal system.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Rather than merely reciting the list of established exceptions, it is important to understand the rationale for making exceptions to free speech protection under the Constitution. The value of free speech sometimes clashes with other important values in our culture.[/FONT]
> 
> ...



I found this at http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C, also part of a larger article.

Historically, freedom of speech was intended to allow people in the fledgling US the right to speak against the government - an offense that could have gotten them killed in England - it was not intended as the right to say whatever you wanted, wherever you wanted, to whomever you wanted, or we couldn't have laws about public obscenity.

From wikipedia:


> The right to freedom of expression is not absolute in any country; governments always prohibit certain types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law, pursue an aim recognized as legitimate, and be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals. It is generally recognised that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.



Could this be the top of a slippery slope?  Certainly.  But if people will not act in a civilized manner, it becomes incumbent upon society to enforce rules of civility - and therefore it becomes incumbent upon the members of society to participate in the governmental process.  Relatively few people vote, and therefore relatively few people determine the policies of the government.  I have been watching this issue carefully, and intend to continue to do so - but for now, I agree with the legal actions taken in regard to this issue.​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#obscenity[/FONT]


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How many of you protesting his behavior today (or approving of this targeted legislation), protested his behavior in other cases, I wonder?


 
how does that matter?  his protesting of military funerals has been the only phelps topic on MT.  just because we didn't type it out here doesn't mean we ignore it.

Carol,

you say it's a free speech violation but go on to say that funerals deserve this kind of protection.  i'm confused.  

then later say that you can't bring yourself to believe that their funerals should be more protected than others.  i don't see why it should be.  i believe this act should encompass all funerals.


----------



## Swordlady (May 29, 2006)

Honestly, I think that Fred Phelps and his ilk give God a bad name.  For people so dedicated to their faith, they totally missed the point of what it really means to be a follower of Christ.  Somehow, I don't think that God is smiling down on Phelps for his actions.

Perhaps he needs to remember this one passage from the book of Ecclesiates: "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven."  A funeral is NOT the right time and place to stage a protest and cause even more grief for the families who lost loved ones.  Is this something he would want to see at _his_ mother's funeral?

I really wish that a law didn't have to be passed to help ensure some sense of decency at a funeral.  But I also understand how more problems could arise, if Phelps and his followers continue to show such blatant disrespect at those kinds of settings.  Yes, we all have our "rights", but we should not use them to trample on another's rights.


----------



## Lisa (May 29, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> I said 'about time' for the same reason I support similar restrictions on picketing and protesting at abortion clinics - there is a limited access/location in both instances, and the people entering the clinic or attending the funeral have no option but to listen to the picketers or avoid the location entirely.  There is a fine line between freedom of speech and harassment - and there are laws against harassment.
> 
> Because this thread intrigued me, I went looking for legal information about this issue, and found this:
> 
> ...



Thank you Kacey for such excellent sources of information.  Not being American it has helped me understand the points of view being expressed here in this thread a little more.

I understand that the people of America hold their rights and freedoms in a very high regard but I can't help but wonder if the men that wrote those rights and freedoms wouldn't agree that there has to be room for change as the country evolves and grows.  I think they would be upset with the extreme that people use those rights as in the case we are discussing here.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 29, 2006)

About time.

These "protests" are "harassment" of a grieving family, to disguise or excuse it as free speech is ********.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 29, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Thank you Kacey for such excellent sources of information. Not being American it has helped me understand the points of view being expressed here in this thread a little more.
> 
> I understand that the people of America hold their rights and freedoms in a very high regard but I can't help but wonder if the men that wrote those rights and freedoms wouldn't agree that there has to be room for change as the country evolves and grows. I think they would be upset with the extreme that people use those rights as in the case we are discussing here.



 :asian: 

Our Constitution is a "living document" thats what amendments are about. You better have a damn good reason and it isnt easy to do and rightfully so. Freedoms should be damn hard to alter.

BTW:Modarnis is a lawyer so he would know better, but there are already all kinds of limits on free speech isnt there? Not infringements, you can still protest just not in some places or some manners.


----------



## Carol (May 29, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> how does that matter? his protesting of military funerals has been the only phelps topic on MT. just because we didn't type it out here doesn't mean we ignore it.
> 
> Carol,
> 
> ...


 

This is indisputably NOT a law that will protect all funerals, it will only protect certain funerals.  

This is a law to protect special-interests.  And as much as I love, honor, respect, and support the special-interest represented...and realize that the special-interest has pages and pages of untold stories of sacrefice...I still can't bring myself to support this act.  

That's just my thoughts though.  Still costs me $5 for a Venti at Starbucks...


----------



## michaeledward (May 29, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> Thank you Kacey for such excellent sources of information. Not being American it has helped me understand the points of view being expressed here in this thread a little more.
> 
> I understand that the people of America hold their rights and freedoms in a very high regard but I can't help but wonder if the men that wrote those rights and freedoms wouldn't agree that there has to be room for change as the country evolves and grows. I think they would be upset with the extreme that people use those rights as in the case we are discussing here.


 
Lisa, I would posit that it was for the extremists among us that the protections were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I don't think I learned it in school, and only recall learning of it when I read a terribly bad biography of Thomas Jefferson, but the Virginia Bill of Rights (as I recall) was the map used for crafting the Bill of Rights for the Constitution. The idea was to protect those who were different from the State. 

And there have been some thought legal explanations as to why this law is what it is ... (although I believe it will still fail when challenged by the ACLU) ... it is still a law written and enacted against one party (Westboro Baptist Church). I feel nothing good can come from such an act.

I understand that Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is the only voice in the House of Representatives that voted against this measure. 

This diary, from DailyKos, I found interesting. 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/29/21638/2456


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> This is indisputably NOT a law that will protect all funerals, it will only protect certain funerals.


 
not true.  please read the act located in the following link.  the act prohibits demonstrations near "any cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery."  nowhere does it mention enabling the act because of a specific group.  of course we all know why this was brought about, the act doesn't say it is only for military funerals.

http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/media/pdfs/fallenheroes.pdf



although the working title of the act is "Respect for Fallen Heroes Act", i don't feel it should be limited to just funerals of this nature.  i believe this act can also protect others as well.


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

cosponsors of H.R. 5037
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05037@@P

voting results
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll129.xml

all the important stuff
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05037@@L&summ2=m&


----------



## Carol (May 29, 2006)

With sincere respect, Sapper, my point still stands.  

The National Cemetary Association, despite it's generic name, is part of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.   Ordinary civilians have no access to VA benefits.

I'll gladly reassess my position should I be mistaken here.  Unfortunatly I don't think I am.  Good catch though :asian:




			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> not true. please read the act located in the following link. the act prohibits demonstrations near "any cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery." nowhere does it mention enabling the act because of a specific group. of course we all know why this was brought about, the act doesn't say it is only for military funerals.
> 
> http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/media/pdfs/fallenheroes.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## Sapper6 (May 29, 2006)

i stand corrected Carol.  i guess that's what sleep-deprived posting gets you.  please disregard my above post.  regardless, i still believe the protection is needed.

on a related note, the cemetery issue being the case, i suppose this act doesn't offer much protection to those not buried on NCA grounds, i.e., private cemeteries?  i find myself asking, why push the act if it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum?  most of the Phelps protests take place at private and locally owned cemeteries.  wow.

thanks for the discussion Carol.


----------



## Carol (May 29, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i stand corrected Carol. i guess that's what sleep-deprived posting gets you. please disregard my above post. regardless, i still believe the protection is needed.
> 
> on a related note, the cemetery issue being the case, i suppose this act doesn't offer much protection to those not buried on NCA grounds, i.e., private cemeteries? i find myself asking, why push the act if it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum? most of the Phelps protests take place at private and locally owned cemeteries. wow.
> 
> thanks for the discussion Carol.


 
Not to worry at all, and I can't help but wonder if many of the acts supporters are supporting it because the National Cemetary Association sounds about as universal as walking in to a bank and seeing that your account is insured by the FDIC.

It doesn't cover non-VA cemetaries, and doesn't cover services where a cemetary would be used at all, such as a burial at sea or the scattering of ashes.   

Religions that believe in reincarnation often have have strict rules about not leaving markers for the dead.  Most, if not all, don't peform a burial of the body, chosing instead to cremate the body and scatter it in open waters...so it also becomes a law that protects Jewish soldiers and Christian soldiers, but not necessarily soldiers those of other faiths...even if they die heroically and are otherwise deserving of military honours.

Thanks to you too Sapper for the discussion as well :asian:


----------



## Hand Sword (May 29, 2006)

It is about time IMHO, and it should be expanded to all funerals and cemeteries. Families and loved ones have it hard enough, they shouldn't have do endure that crap at the services. Some things are sacred.


----------



## Don Roley (May 30, 2006)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> on a related note, the cemetery issue being the case, i suppose this act doesn't offer much protection to those not buried on NCA grounds, i.e., private cemeteries?  i find myself asking, why push the act if it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum?



Probably because it is a lot less trouble for the federal goverment to pass regulations on areas they control than trying to tell the states how they can do things. And in this case, a lot of people killed in Iraq qualify to be buried in national cemetaries. I think there are a lot of states and cities looking into regulating things for the areas under their control to mirror the federal action based on an article I read a few weeks ago. But those state laws would not cover national cemetaries- and you know that Phelps would take advantage of that unless this is passed. Oh, and private cemeteries can lock the gates on people like Phelp. 

Thanks to Kacey for that informative post. It is important to note that Phelps and his crowd can't be stopped from spreading their message. If anyone wants to hear them, they can do so. Phelps can't be stopped from talking to them, preaching to them, having web sites and the like. But your right to swing stops before it reaches my nose. The captive audience rationale is key in this case. No one else has the right to come in and blast me with thier viewpoint. You can't disrupt my wedding, my reading a book at home or anything else to get your message through. No one can stop you from holding those views and getting them out to those who desire to hear them. But you can't run a sound truck through a neighborhood at 2 in the morning.


----------



## modarnis (May 30, 2006)

>>>>Quote:
*The Captive Audience Rationale in Particular Places* Indeed Supreme Court case law expressly permits state regulation of speech to benefit "captive" adults. For example, in the 1988 case of _Frisby v. Schultz_, the Justices upheld a Wisconsin ordinance that forbade picketers from targeting a residence. Quoting prior precedent, the Court explained: "That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech . . . does not mean we must be captives everywhere."
Even as cases like _Frisby _reject the notion that the captive audience rationale can be confined to cases involving children, they endorse a different distinction: The captive audience concept applies only in special places. Clearly the home counts as one such place. Are there others?

Yes, there are plenty. Although the issue has yet to reach the courts, the Westboro Baptist protests strongly suggest that mourners at a funeral should count as captives. At one time or another, lower courts have also relied on the captive audience rationale to uphold restrictions on expression at military induction centers and outside abortion clinics, as well as to uphold restrictions on panhandling in the New York City subways. Meanwhile, commentators have often suggested that laws restricting verbal harassment in the workplace can be justified on the ground that employees are a captive audience of their co-workers. >>>>

The captive audience doctrine mentioned here in Schultz case is distinguishable from the issue at hand.  In Schultz, the public street where the picketing takes place is open public space.  

A cemetery is held out for limited specific public purpose.  The factors I previously cited are the ones that apply to a cemetery, which is considered a limited public forum by the current state of Supreme Court caselaw.  

While the standard of  strict scrutiny is applied to these type cases, content neutral laws that merely regulate time, place, or manner of speech have long been held constitutional


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 30, 2006)

> The new law bars protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a national cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery. This restriction applies an hour before until an hour after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison."



So it restricts people from holding rallies or protest near a funeral procession?  I don't see a problem with it.  Does a widow(er) or child of the deceased really need to hear that their relative died from God's wrath?  At least during the burial?


----------



## HKphooey (May 30, 2006)

It still amazes me that we had to even create a law for this issue. The first time I heard of such a protest, sickened me beayond belief.  I recently was watching coverage of a miltary funeral and was amazed at the outpouring of individuals placing themselves (and flags) between the protestors and the funeral.  

I am glad the law was passed.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 30, 2006)

Dont some states have laws against interrupting a religious service? I would think that they could be expanded to gravside services.


----------



## matt.m (May 30, 2006)

I saw people die during my enlistment in the Marines.  I am going with the about time camp full steam on this one.


----------



## Kreth (May 30, 2006)

I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I think this is another case of legislation to protect a specific group (in response to media attention) when existing laws cover the situation perfectly fine. 
The protestors definitely crossed the line of "peaceful protest." Disturbing the peace, inciting a riot? There is plenty of precedent to hammer them under existing legislation.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 30, 2006)

Hmmm...

The Places in question ARE public... but are the services they are disrupting?  I mean, are they Banned from being in those places, or only when it is disruptive to the private services taking place there?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (May 30, 2006)

Some States already have these type of laws.

Wisconsin



> North Carolina General Statutes:
> 14-288.4. Disorderly conduct.
> (a) Disorderly conduct is a public disturbance
> intentionally caused by any person who:
> ...



And from a rough look at google quite a few others already have them too.


----------



## michaeledward (May 30, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> The Places in question ARE public... but are the services they are disrupting? I mean, are they Banned from being in those places, or only when it is disruptive to the private services taking place there?


 
It would appear that they are banned from the location for one hour preceeding through one hour after the completion of a service. Whether the protestors are disruptive, or not (silent vigil?) does not seem to bear upon the rule as I understand it.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It would appear that they are banned from the location for one hour preceeding through one hour after the completion of a service. Whether the protestors are disruptive, or not (silent vigil?) does not seem to bear upon the rule as I understand it.


 
Hmm... yeah...


----------

