Obama Signs Honoring America's Veterans Act, prohibiting military funeral protests

Y'know how Americans are, they have to be seen and heard by people of notoriety. It would behooved them to find their own venue in private or public to go out spout off at the mouth, but that wouldn't be as fun because no one else would be around to listen to it hardly.

 

I really really hate to be arguing on the side of the crazy Phelps family but I think there is a very important issue here.

Except they aren't protesting at the funeral themselves but outside of them on public property and if I remember correctly they were already restricted with how close they could come to the funerals. I think there is a very bad precedent being set though when saying a protest cannot even be held at all during an event on public property at all.

Religious institutions, private recreational functions and businesses are private property and therefore exempt from the right of free speech. A national political convention is also technically a private function. Educational institutions, Congressional sessions and courtrooms speech is limited in regard to allowing procedures to happen. For all of those though you can protest outside of them while they are in session. Consider that many hateful things are frequently expressed about members of Congress, defendants or prosecutors in court and about candidates yet protests are allowed outside of Congress, courts and national political conventions.

I think there are some very fine lines regarding using defamation to limit speech. For example could Obama have taken birthers to court for defaming him? Also in the case of the Westboro Baptist church a defamation suit could apply as while they are protesting soldiers funerals it doesn't appear like they are defaming the individual soldiers in particular.

Also in the case of hateful and disgusting speech the harm from it often affects the speaker more than the target. The Westboro Church is a perfect example of this. They are almost universally reviled not the soldiers who they protest.

I think this is a very dangerous way of thinking. I mean who is to decide who or what is credible in regard to free speech? The point of free speech is that it is free to everyone regardless of credibility. When free speech is defined by what is acceptable to the most of society I don't think it can be called 'free' at that point.

This case really has very little to do with anti-war as the Westboro church isn't really anti or pro war but just looking for events that will draw a lot of attention to protest at. Anyway though considering the issue of anti-war speech consider that many consider protests in front of military bases as being offensive. In fact many consider any protest of US policy during wartime as being unpatriotic, offensive and some even say treasonous. Should then and anti-war protest be banned because many are offended by them in general?

You can't go into Trump Towers and preach the Gospel but you can do it on the sidewalk outside of Trump Towers. The Westboro church has never had the right to go into funerals but they do have the right to protest outside on public property what this law would do though is ban them, and anyone else, from protesting at all during a funeral even though they are not in it and are away from it on public property. As far as I can tell that is unprecedented that an event can shut down any protest even if it is outside on public property and is not materially interfering with that event. My own guess is that if there is a lawsuit against it won't stand.

I fully understand why people want this law and I totally absolutely agree The Westboro Church is hateful, disrespectful and if I believed in Hell it wouldn't surprise me if there is a special spot reserved for them. On the other hand though I don't want to sacrifice the principle of free speech just to shut them up. In my opinion the answer to hateful offensive speech is more speech and the way to limit the damage of the Westboro Church's actions is to do things like the Patriot Guard
http://www.patriotguard.org/
and use free speech to counter and drown out the Westboro Church.

 

the only time free speech should be suppressed is when it infringes on another right.

That's why you can't yell fire in a theatre.. because it puts someone's inalienable rights at risk.

Question is whether it is a right to be able to grieve for the dead in peace. I think that is a right. And a protest should be limited in either that it must be quiet so that the people's right are not infringed upon, or it should be far enough away that they can't hear it.

This law doesn't accomplish that. But I think that is what should be done in the ideal scenario.

 

Those are still public forums, while funerals tend to be more personal and ceremonious. I've seen higher-end establishments keep undesirables way fairly well. You see armed police officers or heavy security guards surround areas. Look at the Occupy Wall-Street protestors, look how well some police departments kept them away from establishments, like banking companies.

You should visit their websites, they revel in personal attacks on individuals and their families. They do address their targets by names and put their names on colorful signs. They go after people personally.

I used anti-war protestors as an example, comparing them to the Westboro Baptist Church. Again, protesting in front of military base is one thing, but at the funerals of fallen soldiers is something else.

Most of all, the Westboro Baptist Church is not having their free speech limited, but they won't be allowed to express it in a somewhat more private location, like a court room or congressional hearing. Even if the rule says that you cannot protest within two miles of a funeral location, I'd be fine with that rule. Again, what is credible about slander, libel, and defamation of character at someone's funeral? As it stands right now, we don't have total or unfettered free speech, you just cannot walk into a private setting and say anything you want, like in court room, business forum, or theater. Again, the Westboro Baptist Church are not barred from their freedom of speech, but they are barred from the platform they can use. The point is not taking away their free speech, but getting them away from the funerals.

I wouldn't see the massive harm in it. I'm sorry.

Protestors can be barred from sidewalks, if an owner feels it disrupts the community or business (though it does depend on the ruling of local judges). One measure is that potential group may impede or block the sidewalks or cause traffic disturbances.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1117pruitts-ON.html
http://asiansart.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/uc-student-protesters-barred-from-uc-property/
http://prop1.org/legal/prisons/1amend.htm

It's only turning an event into circus at that point, one group of protestors come there usurp another group protestors. I don't see why we cannot give special consideration to these families. I'm sure most of them do not want to go through these. There's no reason for it. Why we should allow a hateful group or any group of protestors to disrupt an event like a funeral with their platform. Personally, I wouldn't want that for any of my family members or friends. If it's a case where a group has submit a permit that explains what the purpose of their means are, I think a judge or local city should show discretion in what's accepted and what's not, especially for a funeral. This isn't like protesting an institution or business about a policy or standard. The Church is not preventing from saying or expressing anything,

 

I'm all for no protesting at funerals. There are plenty of public forums to protest whatever you want. But a funeral should not be one of them

 

Definitely agree there are gray areas, but find it to be a bit of a stretch to parallel between hanging effigies and protesting outside funerals. The KKK example is problematic because its not a protest at all, its simply a threat of violence against another person, which is against the law. But if the KKK were organizing a rally and during that rally made incendiary remarks, held obscene posters and banners, and gave outlandish speeches, we might not like it- in fact, we would, and should, condemn it in the strongest terms....but it would be legal, no?

'Holding certain things sacred' is extremely nebulous, and one persons definition of sacredness differs from others. People have protection in their private space, and even the Westboro Baptist Church has to respect private property and protest off funeral grounds away from the burial.

Let me ask another question- would you agree to a universal ban on protests at funerals? I get the impression that you wouldnt have a problem with such a law.

I also think its difficult not to see the politicization of such a law, but thats an entirely separate discussion....

 

I'm not sure I agree with it, but if my family member was KIA and these protesters were at his/her funeral, I'd be very tempted to follow them home and beat them within an inch of death.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/isY1wsGcH9k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've seen a great number of people make a point to Shirley Phelps about condemning LGBT people, yet she does have a child (maybe two) out of wedlock.

 

I just think the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness implies that one can get married in peace, and can bury their dead in peace. You can protest so long as it does not disturb that peace. There needs to be some ground given here.

One could argue that mocking someone's dead is a type of psychological violence. It certainly causes deep pain.

 

There should be no laws that limit free speech except in the case where genuine physical harm can result (the whole yelling "FIRE" thing).

I worry that anything like this will work along the lines of incrementalism - if this is acceptable, then the next increment is a little bit closer.

Yeah, what these ***** do is horrible. Yeah, no decent person thinks they should be allowed to do what they do... but there has to be another way to deal with this tiny, tiny minority of troublemakers... a way that doesn't fundamentally alter one of the most important rights granted to the citizens of our country.

 

That's why I say someone should beat the **** out of these people everytime they protest.

 

This is another example of our civil liberties being stripped away. Since 911 we have had all kinds of qualifiers attached to our personal freedoms under the auspices of protecting us from the boogey man.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


That's where the big contention is, because you can argue that these protest are peacefully assembling at a military or private funeral. Moreover, what about the Westboro Baptist Church being allowed to disturb another groups manner of peacefully assembling at a funeral. It's less about the actual exercise of free speech and more about the platform being used. As I've said earlier, I cannot go anywhere and start spouting things off at the mouth.

Even within my own community, if I went outside and started ranting about certain topic or issue in my front yard or even on the sidewalk. I suspect I could see a police officer showed up in about 10 to 30 minutes and I could be arrested.

Even if I went out and got permit, it may be denied, because the particular community association or HOA may not allow such activities to happen around residences.

 

I don't agree with that premise.

 

I agree! That'd be great!

 

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/pri...eral-protests-westboro-baptist-church-080112/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?pagewanted=all

Again, we don't have total free speech as people make things out to be, you cannot distribute p*rnography featuring children under 18, you cannot disseminate material that could be construed as treason, and you definitely cannot put governmental sensitive information out into public without consent.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...al-pickets-protected-speech-high-court-rules/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tex...lock-westboro-protesters-at-military-funeral/




How does that not fall into defamation of character or slanderous?

 

*fixed*

 

The argument for those was that they were materially harming the ability of those organizations to conduct business. What the Westboro church is doing isn't blocking a funeral which would clearly be a violation of the rights of those having the funeral. At the same time while you can't have a protest in front of the main entrance of a bank you can protest a bank while it is in operation. What this law is saying is that you can't protest while the event is going on and applied to a bank protest would mean you couldn't protest while the bank was open. That as far as I am aware is unprecedented.

I have to admit I don't go their website and don't particularly want to. That said a lawsuit was directed at them by a parent of a soldier whose funeral was protested and they did win the case by 8-1 in the USSC.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030304124.html
Since the USSC has already ruled on this matter I doubt this law will stand.

That is your opinion but judging from the amount of people who accused anti-war protestors as treasonous there are many who consider any anti-war protest as being offensive and disruptive.

The Westboro church is having their free speech right limited. You have to consider what is the point of having a protest. If it was limited that it could only be done where no one else would hear it or it wouldn't garner attention then it wouldn't be a "protest". Again though things like courts, theaters, congressional hearings are not the same as the public sidewalk. As I stated earlier those are either private property where free speech doesn't apply and / or there are procedures being carried out. You can't protest during a Congressional hearing but you can certainly protest right outside as long as you aren't blocking the way. You can protest as loud and as obnoxiously as you want.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OmP4Gb2pEsY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The harm though is in what is that you have to consider what is the purpose of free speech? If free speech is only limited to what is considered socially acceptable how is that actually free speech?

Again though those situations for the most part involve blocking access. The Westboro Church isn't blocking access to a funeral or preventing a funeral to take place. Further the USSC has upheld the right to public sidewalks for protest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_v._Committee_for_Industrial_Organization

Except the USSC has said that just because speech that may be considered offensive to some cannot be prohibited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v._Connecticut
Under Cantwell it allowed Jehovah Witnesses to proselytize in a Roman Catholic neighborhood even though that neighborhood found it offensive and disruptive.

Again I think it is a very dangerous precedent to start determining which groups can exercise free speech. That does set up a situation where speech is limited only to what is found acceptable to either the majority or to worse the government. The Westboro Baptist church is vile and disgusting but the consequence of a free society is that vile and disgusting speech is allowed in the public sphere.

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uczUKTwgqeY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If someone witty like Jim Rome with a platform like radio has the right to belittle someone everyday -- why shouldn't Everett have the right to respond physically?

Sticks and stones... is nonsense -- words do hurt it's called emotional abuse.