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

Again, I have emphasize this in which The Westboro Baptist Church is not being banned from free speech or being prohibited from voicing their views, they are only being kept away from funerals. 1,000 ft rule one local jurisdiction imposed on them or even 2 mile rule. I honestly don't see the harm in that. Again, you can protest on sidewalk, but it can be a public disturbance. The point is whether funerals are considered to be a part of the public sphere, when in reality funerals tend to be very private events.

It goes beyond a simple exercise of free speech in a public forum, because funerals aren't necessarily a public forum or venue for someone to voice a matter that is completely irrelevant to activities of a funeral.

Again, even with the constitution, it emphasizes the word "PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLING" . . . and that's where my contention lies. They are more or less causing a stir, provoking anger, and inflaming people (on a personal level). Is truly a protest? Moreover, how many groups actually protest at funerals, it's very uncommon and atypical. It has already happened to them, once where the group itself (The Westboro Church)...can become the victims of violence (pelted with rocks). Once will happen, once someone decides to bring a dangerous weapon into the equation. Again, everyone focuses on free speech (disregard the platform of speech), but there are also safety issues involved. What happens if protest start to become persistently violent? What if it leads to a riot near a funeral?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yVb0ifzw4d4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

This restriction can be somewhat analogous to the restrictions that most states have on demonstrations near polling places. Nearly every state restricts access.

"In order to protect voters from interference and intimidation, state governments have enacted a complex array of election laws that regulate what activities are permitted at polling places on Election Day. These laws impact your ability to shoot video or take photographs at a polling place, even if your purpose is just to document your own voting experience. In the vast majority of states, these laws make a distinction between what you can do inside a polling place and what you can do outside a polling place. The laws are more restrictive when it comes to activities inside and within certain buffer zones around the entrance, which are typically 100 feet from the entrance or interior voting area. Outside of the polling place and these buffer zones, your ability to document your voting experience is much freer."

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/documenting-your-vote#StateResources

 

It most certainly tramples on the first amendment, but I don't give a crap. Kudos to Obama for having the guts to tell these people to STFU. It literally brings me to tears thinking about families having to endure these hateful protests on their day of solace.

It's sad that we have to have laws for people to be decent to each other. It's not the soldiers fault we went to war, what do you expect them to do? Not shoot back? Isn't the penalty pretty severe for defection?

Every time I see someone in uniform I want to thank them for their risks, but I also feel they may want to be left alone. Any vets here wanna shed some light for me? Is it awkward? Does it make you feel better about what you had to endure?

 

What a joke. It is this imaginary untouchable free speech that has such a heavy hand in the foreign policy of your government. Let someone show you the most conservative figures for civilian deaths outside your country, and the flag comes-a-waivin about how state-corporate cronyism and campaign "donations" are a symbol of free speech and must be protected at all costs despite their social costs.

This is exactly what some posters are talking about when they say reasonability is a myth.

Don't get me wrong - protesting at a funeral is truly sick behavior. But it's no more sick than restricting the "time" (what a novelty) of free speech in this instance when any restrictions whatsoever in far graver instances are routinely rejected.

You can rationalize this however you want, digging for the reasons why you may personally believe this can be a good idea. I can do that too - I can try to imagine dealing with a funeral while someone is interrupting by protesting politics. It appeals to everyone's human side. But if you can't see that this is nothing other than the politicization of human tragedies, then you are fooling yourself.

If this is happening so often that a law needs to come into effect, then there is a pattern. If there is a significant pattern of humans willing to intrude on funerals to protest, you better believe it's important and there is an underlying problem which needs to be addressed. I'm not talking about Westboro, I'm talking about a pattern.

There is either total free speech - and it's difficult/impossible to live that way. You have never had total free speech.

Then there is partial free speech. In partial free speech, for any semblance of reasonability to be maintained, you have to compare each case to the big picture, compare to all other instance which may merit restriction, and determine whether it falls into that "must restrict" category. If you're not doing that every single time, then the entire reasonability test is at the whim of the person with the loudest voice. That's not you.

 

I disagree. The business of a funeral is to allow people to grieve and heal as they bury their loved ones. This business requires people to have peace around them.

THe protests prevent the purpose of a funeral from being fulfilled. The participants in the funeral are unable to heal and focus on their pain because it is being exasperated by people shouting and making noise.

Therefore, it can be argued that Westboro Church did interfere with the business of the funeral.

 

I find it very sad that the thing Republicans and Democrats in Congress agree on is a measure to limit free speech/assembly. I would support this if it was a constitutional amendment and there was overwhelming popular support for it. Congress does not have this power.