02-10-2006, 10:40 AM | #41 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
can't protest in front of City Hall, due to terrorism restrictions. can't protest via bike rally because need permits, and causes traffic ala Critical Mass. it's happening already. IMO, people want to show what an insensitive person they are, let them, it just solidifies them being an asshole.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
02-10-2006, 12:19 PM | #42 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
Let's take your wishes and extrapolate them. First we move them back 100 feet. Someone at the funeral doesn't like that so we move them back 500 feet. Well that's still not cool because you can still hear them at the funeral. So we'll say no protesting within 4 miles of a cemetery when a funeral is going on. Then the protestors will protest when there's no funeral, but they'll upset some family member that's visiting the grave, so we'll say no protesting within 4 miles of a cemetery, period. Now the places to protest are severely limited. Once we make a "protest distance" law, we are on the proverbial slippery slope. At what distance does the distance law become unconstitutional? 5 feet, hey that's fine. 100 feet, yeah, that's good too. 500 feet. . well now we're getting kinda far, but hey we did 100 feet and that's not unconstitutional so 500 feet must be ok too. Eventually we could require that all protests be held in a soybean field 20 miles away from Faribault Minnesota. Sure, they can still protest. they have the right to protest. But who's gonna hear them? How can their protest have any meaning? The point of a protest is so that people, usually a specific group of people, hears you. The anti-abortion crowd does not protest in front of the catholic church because they don't need to get their message across to the catholic church. They protest in front of places where they know people have opinions that they want to change. If we limit where someone can protest, we are placing restrictions on their freedom of expression. If we start down that path, who knows how bad it will get before someone wises up and turns it around? And Cynthetiq, yes, I know that's happening. And it's unconstitutional and it's wrong, and I'm outraged that people aren't outraged over it. |
|
02-10-2006, 12:30 PM | #43 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
Quote:
|
|
02-10-2006, 01:50 PM | #44 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Connecticut
|
Quote:
Abortion protesters don't expect to change opinions at clinics. They hope to generate media coverage which broadcasts their agenda as widely as possible. They are moved far enough from the clinic so as not to impede patients from seeing their doctors. That is a ligitimate restriction of political and religious expression. No one has moved them "20 miles from Faribault" in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade. Obscenity, defamation, sedition, and hate speech are not protected speech. They are illegal expressions of speech. They are punishable offenses. I think that it's wise that the constitution has the flexibility to accomodate social conditions that weren't considered when the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights were drafted. The Bill of Rights was the first exercise of this flexibility. This is the major flaw in your arguments in this thread IMO. I agree to a great extent with most of what you are saying, but you present the first amendment as as absolute that can never be approached legally. It has been approached from several angles, and at appropriate times the Supreme Court ruled that some forms of speech are improper and unlawful. I hope that you can admit that there is some room for accomodation as society changes.
__________________
less I say, smarter I am |
|
02-13-2006, 05:51 PM | #45 (permalink) |
Tone.
|
Well I don't know that I've done what you are accusing me of doing. Yes there are limits to freedom of speech. I can't yell fire in a theater, for example. . .Unless of course, there actually is a fire. But that's because doing so would put others in danger and could get someone killed. The obsenity issue is still pretty hotly contested. It's pretty hard to find someone who got jailed for saying "shit," however.
Libel/slander are interesting, but I don't think they weaken my argument. Libel and slander are defined as publications/speeches which are false, are known to be false, and are said anyway in order to harm someone else. Again it goes back to actual measurable harm. In the theater case, people can get trampled. In the libel/slander case, people's lives - at the very least their economic lives- can be ruined. I think you'd have a tough time showing actual measurable economic or physical harm endured by people at a funeral because some idiot is out protesting outside the cemetery. You could easilly show that they were offended. You could show that they were upset. But the law does not hold that offending or upsetting someone is a crime. This action is essentially trying to criminilize causing offense. The 1st clearly was not meant as "you can say what you want as long as no one's upset about it." |
02-13-2006, 06:15 PM | #46 (permalink) |
Minion of the scaléd ones
Location: Northeast Jesusland
|
Let me put it this way, I believe that Fred Phucking Phelps has a right to spew his filth in public, near funerals, wherever. One has no right to not be offended. That said, if one knowingly gives someone mortal offense when they are at their least emotionally stable, one has no right to believe that they will leave the premises with all of the teeth they arrived with.
I don't believe for a second that, if someone did less than mortal damage to this jerkwad for protesting outside of a funeral, that any jury in the country would convict him. Heck, if this were in the middle east, someone would already have burnt his church down around his ears, likely after nailing them to the altar. Will no one rid us of this meddlesome priest? (Worked last time.)
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life. |
02-13-2006, 06:35 PM | #47 (permalink) |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
The only thing I find more offensive about this situation than Phelps and his cronies spewing hate at helpless people is the fact that he has taken it so far that lawmakers feel a need to curb his right to spew hate. Without permitting hate speech we hav no way to understand just how far we have to go until we eradicate hate, and once we justify bannning speech or non-violent action of any kind, we set a precedent that it is acceptable to gag our speech if we're uncofortable with what's being said. If we want any chance of tackling serious issues, we need to encourage people to talk about them, not jam socks in their mouths and pretend the problems don't exist.
|
02-13-2006, 06:36 PM | #48 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Connecticut
|
Quote:
The larger point is that I believe we need to stretch out minds to envision that even constitutional protections are able to be amended and abridged for the public good should circumstances arise. Virtually everyone agrees that Phelps' speech is disagreeable and protected, but there are legitimate, possible, and even probable reasons that his behavior may be limited in the future. Like I said, it may be just one gunshot away, and I can't think of another public figure who is less symapathetic than Fred Phelps. I don't believe that disagreeable speech ought to be repressed in and of itself, but I think reasonable people can see the likely violent, even deadly repercussions of a belligerent and opportunistic putz like Phelps. I was an escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota in the early 90s, and the 15-foot restrictions placed on protesters that were otherwise blocking access to the clinic was welcome and appropriate to the situation.
__________________
less I say, smarter I am |
|
02-13-2006, 06:46 PM | #49 (permalink) |
Tone.
|
but those 15 foot restrictions were purely for right-of-way. The protestors were blocking the way into the clinic. That wasn't trumping the 1st amendment. That was restricting a group from preventing another group from legally going somewhere.
Now, 100 feet away from the cemetery isn't for right of way, it's to move the protestors where they won't bother the people in the cemetery. That's beyond the scope of what congress can do without a constitutional amendment. Phelps and his gang aren't stopping the funerals, they're just making asses of themselves outside the gates. And you're right that some day an idiot might shoot Phelps for his bullshit outside the cemetery. And that idiot should go to jail. Saying Phelps shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion because someone MIGHT shoot him is kinda crazy. Should we have said that to Martin Luther King too? |
02-13-2006, 07:14 PM | #50 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Connecticut
|
All the protests I've seen and heard of were outside of churches, not cemeteries, but I can't say it's exclusive to churches. And I concede that no restrictions are appropriate in anticipation of violence as I've stated it.
However, in 1997, in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, the Supreme Court uphelp a fixed buffer area around clinics to ensure "safe passage" based on intimidating behavior, and the court upheld a "cease and desist" provision that allowed only two protesters to approach clinic patients, who were then required to withdraw if asked. The protesters were still allowed to protest, but effectively denied the "right" to direct their protest in intimidating manners towards individuals. In this case, the bahavior of the protesters was a determinig factor of the case.
__________________
less I say, smarter I am |
02-13-2006, 07:35 PM | #51 (permalink) |
32 flavors and then some
Location: Out on a wire.
|
There's no doubt that Phelp's has the right to believe whatever he wants and express tha belief.
The real question here is whether this is a legitimate excercise of free speech, protected by the first amendment, or harassment, which might not be. Personally, I find what he says unpardonably repulsive, while at the same time smiling just a little bit every time his extremist rhetoric his the mainstream airways because it better illustrates the absurdity of the "homosexuality is immoral" stance than anything I could say. When it's done at a funeral, it's detestible. As someone said earlier, I'm torn, because I find Phelps and everything he stands for repulsive, but at the same time, I'm a big fan of freedom of speech, and I'm not sure whether saying "You can say whatever you like, but you can't say it in this place at this time" is an abridgement of free speech or not. Gilda
__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert |
02-13-2006, 08:42 PM | #52 (permalink) |
Tone.
|
I think Gilda is echoing all (or at least most) of our deep down sentiments.
Sure, I'm up here staunchly defending the 1st amendment and saying Phelps has the right to be an asshole just about anywhere he wants. But that doesn't mean I don't wish he'd find a more appropriate place to do it. Do I think he should be protesting at funerals? Nope, not at all. But as I've mentioned, the first amendment would be pointless if we were allowed to modify it or to claim it doesn't apply just because certain speech makes us unhappy or squeamish. I'm not happy that Phelps is putting these families through listening to his crap while they're burying their loved one, but because passing a law to stop him would also limit other instances of free speech - ones which might make someone else unhappy but with which I would have no problems, I defend Phelp's right to do what he is doing. Put another way, I don't want the fact that I think Phelps should stop what he is doing to cause a law to be passed that could stop other people from doing what I do not think they should stop doing. |
02-14-2006, 08:07 AM | #54 (permalink) | |
<3 TFP
Location: 17TLH2445607250
|
Quote:
|
|
02-14-2006, 10:51 AM | #55 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
I can't have a parade when and where I want. Why should a rally be any different? I like to avoid as many large crowds as I can since I walk through a space where about 1 million people a month walk through, those are just tourists. But if I know that someone is rallying in a particular part of town, I avoid it. The news is very good about telling people where rallies will be held. Why can't I know beforehand so that I can plan and no be inconvenienced?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
02-21-2006, 05:35 AM | #56 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
I think this shows the power of freedom of speech. If we were to limit Phelps's freedom of speech, we'd have to limit the speech of these bikers too. Government intervention isn't needed for everything.
Quote:
|
|
02-21-2006, 06:17 AM | #57 (permalink) |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
The part that really got me about the article was off topic to our original discussion - the fact that these idiots protested the funerals of the WV miners. I stand by my position that this is protected speach, but I'm glad that the bikers are there to share their own protected speach. The sad fact of the matter is that good people are having to sink to the level of Phelps et al to drown him out.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
02-21-2006, 05:06 PM | #58 (permalink) |
Minion of the scaléd ones
Location: Northeast Jesusland
|
Now, I am not going to go in for the jingoistic hero worship that was the order of the day on Fark, but it is nice to see this working out the way it really ought to. I'm with samcol on this one.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life. |
05-25-2006, 04:05 AM | #59 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Connecticut
|
From CNN
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House. The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals. The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said prior to the Senate vote. "It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said. Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison. The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said he took up the issue after attending a military funeral in his home state, where mourners were greeted by "chants and taunting and some of the most vile things I have ever heard." "Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace," Rogers said Wednesday before the House vote. The demonstrators are led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who has previously organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard. In an interview when the House bill passed, Phelps said Congress was "blatantly violating the First Amendment" rights to free speech in passing the bill. He said that if the bill becomes law he will continue to demonstrate but would abide by the restrictions. Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said the loved ones of those who die have already sacrificed for the nation and "we must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus." In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcycle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions. More than a dozen states are considering similar laws to restrict protests at nonfederal cemeteries. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a new Kentucky law, saying it goes too far in limiting freedom of speech and expression.
__________________
less I say, smarter I am |
05-25-2006, 04:32 AM | #60 (permalink) |
Upright
|
I see Fred all the time preaching his hate filled BS.
I find it interesting that the outrage only has come when he started protesting peoples funerals that aren't gay. Where is the uproar about "Free Speech Zones" Those were instituted to protect Dubya's sensitive ears I know I'll be on a corner with a sign at Fred's funeral. I'm thinking I will not be alone |
05-25-2006, 04:41 AM | #61 (permalink) |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
This is nice and all, but I think that its a pretty egregious affront to the protesters' 1st Amendment rights. I don't expect that these laws will stand up to challenge, which is unfortunate because the lawmakers' hearts are in the right place. Its too bad that Phelps et al are making this statement, but its their right to do so, no matter how offensive most of us find it.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
05-25-2006, 04:51 AM | #62 (permalink) |
I aim to misbehave!
Location: SW Oklahoma
|
All constitutional issues aside. Just like we do with our children, if we do not expect and fight for a minimum of decency and respect for others, we will not get it.
And, at what point does a church quit being a place to worship and praise a creator and, instead, become a dangerous organization intent on harming others? Just something else to think about. Is this, by most definitions, still a church?
__________________
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G. I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom |
Tags |
blow, dealt, fred, phelps |
|
|