I don't find this to be a slippery slope at all, and I'm all for liberties.
Quote:
Amendment I
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.
|
First of all, they can call this free speech, but there is judicial record of not allowing 100% free speech (there are laws on the books in Michigan that offer fines and jail time for people swearing in the presence of women and minors. This was upheld just a few years ago). You can call for right to assemble, but look at how it's written, grammatically. Look at the punctuation. I read this to say one has the right to peacefully assemble for a redress of a grievance with the government, not with other people. I somehow sincerely doubt that our Forefathers had the intention of allowing such a heinous act to be protected.
At any rate, I don't believe the proposed laws (any of them) take away anyone's rights. Part of having rights is that you can not use them to trample of the other rights of people. This is in direct conflict of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that America is supposed to be about. If they are to speak out against the war efforts, and against military personnel, so be it... but NOT at a funeral and not at the extended suffering of the families. Causing suffering during a period of grief is certainly NOT a constitutionally protected right.
You want constitutional? Let's look a bit further back:
Quote:
|
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|
Anyone recognize this? It's also part of our Constitution. The very first part, in fact. What is domestic tranquility? Peace at home? That sounds right. How can people be assured peace, when during the mourning of a loved one they are protested and heckled? The blessings of liberty? Does the liberty to speak out override the liberty to have a peaceful funeral for a loved one? When rights conflict, I feel the injured party, if there is one, has rights first. This continues to support the "domestic tranquility" bit. I agree that "Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither". But I don't believe this to be a loss of freedom at all. This is a simple law that is akin to many laws in existance in this country since it's birth. Some laws conflict with freedoms and liberties to protect the freedoms and liberties of other people. There is no perfect way around this without lawlessness. You don't have the liberty to kill someone for flipping you the bird. This isn't much different. Someone flips you off and you stand out in front of their house with a sign reading "so and so is rude and flipped me the bird". You would likely be cited for civil disturbance of some form or another.
Also, carrying a sign saying someone deserved to die is outright immoral, regardless of the circumstance. Wishing death to participatory soldiers in this war is akin to threatening them, via god, with death. This, I believe, is also illegal.