Bill O'Rights

Link
About damned time! Constitutional Rights were not put into place just to give the likes of Freddie boy free reign to be an ass. Now, maybe he won't see any need to leave Topeka. Poor Topekans...

Well...I guess that we can see that I am in full support of the pending bill. What about you? Are you in favor of a law that would, in effect, feed Fred Phelps his ass? Or, would such a law set the stage to ultimately squash the Bill Of Rights, because "someone is offended"? There are, after all, two sides to every coin.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

The_Jazz

This is a slippery slope. I'd be real interested to see how they craft this, especially since you could try to turn the statute around and try to apply it to protests other than funerals or expand it to include all sorts of things.

Then again, we've already got designated protesting boxes at major events that are nowhere near the event itself so maybe I'm overthinking this.

JustJess

Hmm... I'm torn. On the one hand, yes, it's deplorable that they would have the gall and incredible insensitivity to protest a person's funeral. On the other hand... that's their 1st amendment right. I don't like it, and I'd be secretly happy that Phelps got whupped, but I don't honestly believe it's constitutional to deny protesters the right to protest, even when it's in really bad taste.

As for "protest boxes"... I consider those to also be unconstitutional. I understand that they want to limit disruption and possible frays, but that's just too bad. We should be able to protest anywhere on public property.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

meembo

I wrote a long response, but I think a shorter one is better.

If you have ever seen this fucker in action, you would have no problem preventing him from hurting others at the most vulnerable times in their lives. I've seen him and his followers in action, in Kansas and around the country. He attacks sick and grieving people at the height of their suffering. His free speech is protected, but it's about time that someone says he and his followers can't shout and spit their filth into the faces of grieving victims of sickness and death.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

ngdawg

The demonstrations mounted during military funerals for fallen soldiers is despicable to say the least. Patriot Guard has, I believe, been a huge factor in getting these bills passed in the midwest. They stand guard between the mourners and Phelps band of miscreants at the request of soldiers' families and in less than nine months has gone from just a few American Legion bike groups to a nationwide community of over 5,000 members.
Regardless of how you feel about the first amendment, there's no excuse for total disrespect and organized chaos when a family and a nation mourn the loss of someone who died in protection of those rights.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

JustJess

I can't argue with you guys - these Phelps people are completely deplorable. I would be happy to slap the shit out of one should I ever meet them. But what next? They can't protest at the funeral because it's rude and awful. What about a political funeral, like Dr. King's wife? It's still in poor taste, and they would do better not to protest... but ... So they can't protest there either. Then what event would then be labeled as too sensitive, too traumatic for the participants? It could so easily become a tool to suppress protests at legitimate events.

I think this doesn't belong in the lawmakers' hands. This should be a case, perhaps brought by the Veteran's Association, which asks for a restraining order - disobeying of which results in jail time and fines.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

meembo

To me, the issue is that his expressions are invasive to very vulnerable people. A decent society should protect vulnerable members of that society (which we already do in many ways), and I think that a funeral (or a comparable death ritual) for example certainly qualifies for protection from provocative and invasive behavior that most citizens would recognise as disruptive. I believe I am a strong advocate of first amendment rights, but not to the extent that one group suffers unnecessarily at the sounds and sights of another group's hate speech (which to me is what Phelps is).

Again -- to see this group in action is infuriating. I remember how much I wanted to protect others from this bunch of idiots. Phelps and his group is offensive, and more importantly, provocative to people in a defensive human state (grief).

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

Elphaba

I agree, Meembo. I also believe that SCOTUS ruled on intrusive protests that would apply to Phelps behavior in their decision that antiabortion protesters could not line the entry into abortion clinics. Sadly, the legislation to prevent Phelps and his lot from doing this to grief stricken family members will ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Rodney

I wonder when Fred Phelps will wise up and realize he's doing more for gay rights than any pro-gay activist in America. Probably never. But his behavior is so odious that it helps to discredit all but the most moderate of opponents for gay marriage and such. Fred Phelps's example is helping the average American to associate virulent anti-gay sentiments with hateful, malevolent craziness.

However, I feel great sorrow for the innocent families who have to deal with his venom at a time of tragedy.

One thing to keep in mind: I believe that all of Phelp's many kids are members of the church, and I remember that he sent the vast majority of them to law school and from there on to the bar. In short, he's got his own private law firm for more or less nothing, and not a small one. These laws will be challenged up to the Supreme Court; and he's probably canny enough to try to get the ACLU on his side. Could happen, too; they did a lot of work on behalf of free speech for the American Nazi party back in the '60s and '70s.

cyrnel

100ft? Make it 10,000. Using someone's funeral as a platform for protests is twisted, whatever the topic. I can't imagine what they hope to accomplish except indulging their own hate.

My version of enforcement would include special circumstances for military funerals wherein a 21gun salute can include live rounds and multiple targets.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

filtherton

I think phelps just needs some strapping young man to deal him a blow, if you knowwhattamsayin.

analog

If protesters were at a funeral of a loved one of mine, there would be ass-kicking. Yes, violence would be my answer. Maybe super-soakers full of urine.

shakran

Sorry Bill. Usually you're pretty close to the mark but in this case I think you're wrong.

Don't misunderstand me - I think protesting at funerals like this is NOT appropriate by any stretch, and that's coming from someone who thinks the war should be protested damn near anywhere and anywhen.

But we cannot change people's constitutional rights just because we do not like their behavior. They have the right to express themselves. They have the right to protest. The constitution does not say anything about having those rights only where it is societally appropriate. As sad as it is when some people choose to abuse it, the constitution does not have an anti-asshole clause.

But let's look at what could happen should we outlaw this:

Protests at abortion clinics are out because that upsets the pregnant women who are already at a fragile time in their lives.

Protests on city streets are outlawed because they might offend or upset the citizens and cause an incident.

Protests in front of government buildings are outlawed because they are inappropriately using the imagery of the institutions as a backdrop to their protests.

War protests in general are outlawed because they are "not supporting the troops"

Gay rights protests are outlawed because they might offend heterosexuals.


That all sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? And well it should. We cannot snatch away people's first amendment rights just because someone might get offended, which is essentially what this move is attempting to do.

People do have a constitutionally protected right to be assholes. Unfortunately sometimes that will make us uncomfortable, and sometimes they will take that right too far, but we cannot remove that right for any reason, even the asshole argument.

maximusveritas

Good points shakran. While something should be done, I'm pretty sure that some of these proposals are unconstitutional and will be struck down if passed. It's amazing how much trouble a handful of committed lunatics can cause.

meembo

The tone of the discussion will likely change when Phelps finally incites the violence he seeks to see on the front page of newspapers next to his name. I think it's amazing, almost unbelievable, that he hasn't been shot at, considering the groups of people he protests and the defenders there to confront him. Phelps' blesssing and his curse is that he hasn't incited violence by his actions yet. Until there is "incitement to imminent lawless action" (from Brandenburg v. Ohio), there will be no restrictions on his behavior.

I agree that there are valid free speech arguments against doing anything at all to abridge his speech. But the court has drawn the line at obscenity, defamation, sedition, and hate speech, and I think the victims of Phelps' harassment deserve the same protection from invasive and provocative speech. I think it's sad that nothing will happen until violence breaks out at a funeral.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

Sgoilear

I have to say that I would support a law prohibiting protesters from being within 100 feet of the funeral. After all its not telling them they can't protest, just forcing protesters to remain a respectful distance away.

That's exactly what this law would be, a restraining order already in force that wouldn't need to be renewed for each funeral. I do not think requriing protestors to keep a reasonable distance away from anything that they are protesting is violating their rights. They are clearly there even if 100 feet away. Don't forget that the family and friends of the deceased are also protected by that same document giving the protestors the right to be there.

__________________
"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -George Bernard Shaw

shakran

It's amazing how quickly people are willing to give up their rights just because someone did something they don't like.

If you make them move back, you start a slippery slope. 100 feet today. 1000 feet tomorrow. One day protestors are relegated to demonstrating in a corn field in the middle of nowhere. We cannot take away liberties because some people are assholes. I am not willing to give up MY rights just because a couple of people were jerks.

JustJess

^^ Yep, I agree Shakran, but you already knew that, of course.

I don't like them either... but stopping them starts us on a bad path of precedent.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

The_Jazz

Unfortunately, it would be hard to get a restraining order because you might get your feelings hurt, which is basically what you're talking about. Usually you need to demonstrate potential bodily harm which is something that Phelps et al would never threaten. It would be hard to find a judge willing to grant a restraining order (under the current laws) to get someone to curtail something like this, no matter how oderous it may be. I also can't imagine SCOTUS upholding any law that kept protesters at any distance that would effectively mute them.

meembo

I agree with much of what you are saying. I think of how the Republican Convention in 2004 shut down swaths of New York City and put protesters behind fences blocks away from the convention. That unconstitutional police action was debated on national media for weeks.

I think that protesters can be legitimately moved when their protest denies rights to those at the protests for other reasons. At abortion clinics, for example, protesters are kept back so that they cannot deny patients their right of care from their doctor (which was clearly stated goal of the protesters). As I said above, I think that if and when violence breaks at Phelps' protests, the legal landscape changes to preventing the incitement of unlawful acts, which as I understand is the standard set by Bandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. LINK

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

alpha phi

It's sad consideration of a law like this is even nessassary,
with great freedom comes great responsibility.
These graveside protestors are not within their constitutional rights
to interfere with a funeral prosession.
The constitution guarantees a citizen the right to do anything we wish,
so long as it do not interfere with the right of another citizen to do what they wish.
really, we don't need yet another law that will be over interpeted and used
to restrict other proper constitutional behaivor.
The funeral goers simply need to file a lawsuit claiming thier civil rights
were violated by the protesters, and a judge to say "this is inappropriate"

__________________

Toaster126

Ditto.

Heh, this discussion is taking me down memory lane when Phelps protested my high school graduation.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

xepherys

I don't find this to be a slippery slope at all, and I'm all for liberties.

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:

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.

xepherys

To add to that, the basis of all of what I said is that protesting the government I think is a right. Protesting a person, I believe, is harrassment.

The_Jazz

Xeprerys, those are some very interesting points. I'm sure that when SCOTUS sees any statutes of this nature, they are going to look at exactly what you've outlined. Given the current makeup of the court, you might well be right on all of these point.

Your last point isn't valid, though. Wishing someone dead isn't illegal, even if you say it about the President. Saying that you're the one who is going to do it is another story altogether, but wishing someone dead is completely within your rights. It is not illegal, nor should it be. It is an expression of belief, similar to saying that you wished someone would not participate in a discussion. Where do you draw the line?

xepherys

I'm not sure I wouldn't consider saying, "I wish The_Jazz would just die, " to be at least some form of harrassment. Especially if said to you. Especially if done so by following you around with a sign. *shrug*

ngdawg

Wishing in your head isn't illegal. Put "I wish the President would die" or I hope NG dies" on a sign and parade around and see how quickly your name gets put on a 'list'. There's a very larger difference between believing something and acting on it. If Phelps wants to preach his hate, he is certainly within his rights to do so in his own church/property. When he takes it outside and points it at another, the story changes.
As for the possibility of violence mentioned earlier, part of Patriot Guard's mission is to avoid it always and in fact are there partly to ensure it does not happen-any violence that would occur would not be from them. They are there for the sole purposes of blocking the sight of protesters from the mourning families and pay respects to a fallen soldier. From what I've been able to ascertain regarding these new laws, PGR, unlike Phelps and his crew, will not be breaking them as they are invited.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

The_Jazz

My name's already on lots of lists. For instance, I get mail every few weeks from the folks at Columbia House offering 12 CD's for the price of 1!

Seriously, putting someone on a list isn't illegal and might be prudent in some circumstances. However, saying that you wish someone was dead still isn't unprotected speach. I don't think that it passes the test of harrassment unless it is said in a threatening way (i.e. with gun in hand) or at such a high volume that it disturbs the peace. Remember the old addage that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. I can say that I wish Paul Konerko was dead because he led those damn White Sox to a World Series, but unless I act on it or scream it at the top of my lungs in an inappropriate setting (i.e. in front of his house at 6 am as opposed to Wrigley Field during the Cubs/Sox game), there is nothing wrong with it. Sure, it may be in poor taste, but since when has poor taste been illegal. If it were, every fall the jails of East Tennessee would be full of overweight people dressed in a hideous shade of orange that just wanted to show their support for their colorblind team.

As much as I disagree with everything that he says and stands for, Phelps has the right to preach his hate from his church, his property, the courthouse steps, the street corner and any piece of public property. So long as he is not causing a dangerous situation by blocking traffic or impeding access to homes, businesses or anything else, he absolutely has the right to make his opinions known, no matter how distasteful they may be. I absolutely disagree with his methods and message, but he has the right to deliver what he has to say in the way that he's doing it. It is certainly distasteful in the extreme, but he's doing nothing illegal. If he does do something illegal, I'm the first one to applaud the cops as they haul him off, but I haven't heard of anything like that.

If you start making exceptions to the First Amendment because you don't like the message or the way it's delivered, where do you draw the line. Personally, I hate all the reruns of "The Nanny" because Fran Drescer has an annoying voice and the plotlines are insulting at their high points. They offend me. Why can't we outlaw them?

And xepherys, I'll absolutely support your right to wish me dead right up to the point that I spot you on my lawn with a knife or a gun. You can throw that fist around whereever you want so long as it infringe on my nose's right to occupy its space.

xepherys

Is the cemetery not private grounds? Also, this is not entirely true... there are regulations as to what activites you CAN participate in on public grounds. Private property... have at it, if you have permission, of course. Again, based on the strictest verbiage of the First Amendment, I would have to say that any laws against these actions would not directly violate that amendment.

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Is this not aiding the enemy? I mean, not to be a stickler, but fighting against American troops is certainly counter-productive to the war. And during a time of war, while it may be splitting hairs, I could see his acts as Treasonous and punishable as such. But that's just me...

From the strictest sense of the Constitution, I don't think he has a leg to stand on, so to speak.

The_Jazz

That depends on which cemetary. Some are public and some are private. As far as what you can and can't do on public property, you are of course correct but only up to a point. He is doing nothing other than being annoying, and that is protected speach, regardless of how much of a pain in the ass he is. That's why the KKK is allowed to rally in public and counterdemonstrators are allowed across the street. Both groups have equal right to express their views. The communist party advocates the overthrow of the government at a point to be determined (they've taken out the violent part), and they are a very legal organization, although I think that you'll find that their meetings have been pretty sparsely attended in the past 10 years or so.

I think that you need to reread the clause above. Agreeing with someone does not equate to giving aid or comfort. Phelps is not "fighting" against any troops since he is not armed nor is he assualting them with anything but language. Please show me where he has given any MATERIAL aid to the enemy, material meaning goods and services. He has done neither.

Again, just because you don't like what he has to say doesn't mean he looses the right to say it. I think that he needs to stop preying on families in their darkest hour, but that doesn't mean that he has to. He hasn't broken a law, only the boundaries of good taste, which cannot be mandated by the state. In the strictest sense of the Constitution, including the First Amendment, he has not aided the enemy nor given them comfort. By your same logic, FDR was right to intern all the Japanese-Americans at the beginning of WWII because some of them agreed with Japanese expansionism.

meembo

It's important that people understand that his protection is primarily under religious freedom. He preaches that God kills soldiers and AIDS patients because the United States is pro-gay. His speech is protected because it is religious practice. Here's a link to his site. Under the umbrella of religious freedom, he is allowed to "practice" in this manner.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

mrklixx

I've no done any research on this antichrist, nor do I plan on wasting my time doing so, but have any of his protests been against soldiers from the inner city? Because what little I know about his protests seem to be mainly in middle class suburban neighborhoods. Because I'm thinking if he yelled out derogatory comments at an inner city funeral, he and his followers would find themselves the victims of a drive-by. And if somebody did off him, do you think that would actually recruit more loonies by giving him martyr status? Haven't heard much from the Branch Davidians lately, so maybe not. And would it be cool to yell stuff and harass people at his funeral?


Here's what I wonder, isn't the point of a protest that you want to have something changed? Again, from what little I know of his "protests" just say the deceased is in hell, and all of the people at the funeral are "fag lovers" and are going to hell. To me, that seems like nothing more than disturbing the peace, and public nuisance, both of which are against the law in most places.

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

xepherys

The_Jazz... I don't see any stipulation that requires it be MATERIAL aid. Tokyo Rose gave no MATERIAL aid, but was harrassed by the govt. for years (decades?). She was to be tried for treason, and only wasn't because they could not substantially prove the person they had was, in fact, Tokyo Rose.

shakran

Did it make it to the supreme court?

You read it wrong. And the people protesting at the funerals don't have a problem with the dead guy's family. They have a problem with the GOVERNMENT (the body they're petitioning for a redress of their grievances) having forced the guy to go to Iraq and get killed. I can see why they're doing it. They figure if the government won't allow pictures of the coffins out, you have to draw attention to the funerals somehow.



BS argument. Our forefathers didn't have the intention of allowing TV and radio broadcasts because they couldn't conceive of such a thing. They didn't intend to allow people to drive cars, but we can do that too. Just because the forefathers could not possibly predict all possible future actions does not mean those actions are forbidden.

Show me the article or amendment that gives people the RIGHT to keep other people off of public property if its near a funeral. No rights have been trampled here.

1) That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence and is not part of American law.

2) You just shot yourself in the foot. The protestors are pursuing happiness by protesting at the funeral.

Why? What legal basis do you have for declaring that? What if the families said protesting in front of the capitol building was causing them to suffer because they feel it's not supportive of the troops? Should we ban that too? We have rights in this country, and the nice thing about our constitution is that we get to exercise those rights even if it pisses someone off. Your arguments would have stopped the civil rights movement (hey the blacks are upsetting the whites, make 'em stop, they're trampling on rights), the women's movement (the men are suffering because the women are getting jobs as a result of their protests. Make 'em stop, they can't make anyone suffer), and in fact could be used to squash protest of ANY sort that those currently in power decide they don't like.

Not suffering during a period of grief is also NOT a constitutionally protected right. But freedom of speech, expression, and assembly ARE constitutionally protected rights.



Domestic tranquility refers to the power of the federal government to stop states from warring with each other.

how can we be assured peace when the damn gays are running around holding pride parades and exposing our young'ns to that filth?

How can we be assured peace if the blacks insist on holding million man marches in the nation's capitol? Hell it took me an hour to get to work that day! Ban that crap!

How can we be assured peace if drivers in New York keep honking their damn horns? Ban horns too!

Come to think of it, how can we be assured peace if anyone says anything that someone might not like? Maybe we should just outlaw speech in general.

Gets pretty ridiculous and anti-american when we carry your arguments out to other situations doesn't it? And if we subscribed to your beliefs, the blacks would still be segregated, the gays would still have to hide in the closet for fear of having their entire lives ruined, and no one could say anything if it upset anyone else. I for one am not interested in living in an Orwellian country.




Yes, it absolutely does. The people at the funeral have the right to protest what the protestors are doing. I will not argue that it would not be a good thing if the protestors decided on their own to cool it with the funerial protests, but then it'd also be nice if the kid down the street wouldn't thunk his car stereo at 1am, and it'd be nice if the local TV station didn't air Teletubbies, and it'd be nice if the guy from our competing station hadn't called me a jerk today for not letting him take my spot at the press conference. But to legislate all that just because we are worried about offending people is anti-American. There is no constitutional right not to be offended.

Great! The protestors are the injured party too because their country started an immoral, illegal war without their consent. They, like many, are ashamed to be part of this country right now because its government is behaving in a way that is distinctly against the supposed values of our country.
Come to think of it, NO one would protest if they did not feel they were injured in some way. Who do you think is going to organize a protest because they think things are going great?



Tell that to the protestors who would no longer be free to protest.

Where did you come up with this argument? The protestors aren't killing anyone. What are you talking about?

Yeah, maybe. But if you were on a public sidewalk and you got cited for that you could sue the holy shit out of the police department that cited you, because stopping you from doing that is not legal.
Perhaps, but we cannot legislate morality. Otherwise we must make gays, abortion, and premarital sex illegal. You willing to go that far?

That's just silly. saying "I wish you were dead" is not the same thing as "you're going to die" and it's certainly not saying "dude I have an in with god and he's gonna kill you."

You are wrong.

meembo

Most of the laws or ordinances that have been aimed at him are from the midwest, likely because his "church" is based in Kansas. The majority of protests are in states his church members can get to.

Phelps is primarily protected because he is expressing religious belief. All the other arguments posted here can't top that constitutional protection. I don't like it either, but that's his shield, and he uses it very well.

I said earlier in the thread that I'm surprised violence hasn't broken out at these protests. There are dedicated counter-protesters such as Patriot Defenders that are determined to keep the peace, but I imagine that some angry family member is going to go postal some day when they are angry and emotional, and are looking to vent that anger.

Religious expression is explicitly protected speech. Our courts are becoming more likely to protect religious expression as each year goes by where Republicans are in power in the executive and legislative branches. As long as the protests are "orderly", the protests are explicitly protected by the first amendment, and there isn't any recourse to that, unless the protests are determined to "incite unlawful conduct", which generally hasn't happened.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

xepherys

I recant this particular aspect as further research indicates that the Michigan Appelate Court struck down the law entirely after hearing this case.


You apparently have not done your research on this hateful organization. First of all, their CHURCHES official website is at the URL: http://www.godhatesfags.com/main . While their anti-homosexual stance has no bearing on this thread directly, one can glean a certain amount of understanding of what they are all about from that alone. How about their literature here: http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/j...gislatures.pdf . I'd say that it's fairly certain that they ARE protesting the people, not the government (well, them, too). In fact, I almost feel too sickened after reading that to go on... but I shall...


But hatred has ALWAYS existed. Hatred is not a new technology or new religion. It's something that has been in the hearts of men since the dawn of time. And hatred is directly anti-American as it prevents pursuit of happiness for others. This is why in many places hate crimes rate higher penalties than similar crimes commited for lesser reasons.


None, it is local law that often prohibits such actions.

Ah, I see you are an astute follower of American History. I understand it is not part of American Law... it still, however, is a big basis for the "American Way". Again, you cannot pursue your happiness at the expense of others. I can't just walk over and take a giant shit in the sidewalk in front of your house because I don't like you. There are LAWS against treating individuals badly. If they protested in D.C. or state legistalative buildings... that's one thing. A funeral is a private event and therefore the protestors are in the wrong.


See above points



Well, perhaps it is time for yet another ammendment. People seem to forget that the Constitution has and can change.




Again, take an ad in the newspaper, hold a rally at a town park, picket in front of the capitol building... THOSE are protected rights. Here they are commiting at least the following illegal acts: slander and harassment... MINIMUM.


Again, I don't think your arguments and mine are even remotely related. If you want to hate fags, nigger, chinks, wetbacks, women, jews, semites, soldiers... that's great. Whatever you want! But don't burn crosses on people's lawns. Oh wait... what if it was a public park? What if they took care not to damage the grass? It must be OKAY to do that in hate then? Seems not to me... but whatever...


Is your mom still alive? If so, please let me know when she passes away. I'll tell the good Reverend P that your mom was a whore and loves gays. I'm sure you'll enjoy the picketing on your mothers death bed. I'm not saying they cannot protest the war. I'm a soldier. I fight for their right to DO so. But not at the expense of our other personal liberties.


And let's roll out the SAME thing... they are not protesting the COUNTRY or GOVERNMENT, they are protesting INDIVIDUALS who died in the line of duty. This is not the same thing.


Didn't say they were...

Hmmm, so verbal assault is legal, and physical assault is not? It's not verbal assualt? Where IS the line drawn on the law?

I never said we should legislate morality... but since that's what they are claiming as their right (they use the law then hide behind god and morality) I thought it was a suitable counter to their motives.


Is saying, "You're going to die" a threat? It seems like a fact 10 times out of 10 in my book. And they DO basically say that god is killing them for glorious divine reasons. They ARE saying god will kill them (and the fags and such as well, by the way).


So are you...

shakran

It doesn't matter WHAT their views are. They have the RIGHT to express them. that's why when the KKK waves their nazi flags in front of the governor's mansion, they're not arrested. Because, despite the fact that the majority of people think they're racist jerks, they have the RIGHT to express their opinion.




Wrong, wrong, and wrong. In fact the framers of the constitution were well aware of hatred, and they realized people have the right to hate. There is no law against hating. It is anti american to silence people just because their hateful opinion is unsavory to you.

1) they shouldn't.
2) you're confusing hate crimes with free speech. You're allowed to hate a black guy. You're NOT allowed to kill him. Big difference.




Wanna give me an example of a local law that forbids people to be on public property? If you manage to find one I can pretty much guarantee it hasn't been tested in court.





We are talking about the law here. Hot dogs are also part of the "American way" but that doesn't mean there are laws requiring that we eat them.

Yes, actually, you can. My wife would much rather I spend all my spare time doing projects with her. Instead sometimes I pursue my happiness by installing go-fast goodies in my car. In that instance I am pursuing my happiness at the expense of others.

There's no law on the books that says it's illegal to make someone unhappy.



Actually that would fall under public vandalism, or improper hazardous waste disposal. You're doing that on public property. I don't own the sidewalk. If you did it on my lawn it would be vandalism.

You CAN walk in front of my house and call me a jerk and there's nothing I can do about it, legally. Protesting at a funeral does not MATERIALLY harm anyone. The guys at the funeral aren't losing any money or property as a result of the protestors. And as I've said, it's not illegal to make someone upset.



A funeral is a private event. The sidewalk outside the cemetery is a public sidewalk. They MAY be able to keep them out of the cemetery. They may NOT keep them off the sidewalk.


OK. If you can get 2/3rds of the state to ratify your "squash freedom of speech" idea, go for it. But the law as it stands now allows it. As well it should. The idea that people have freedom of speech as long as they don't say something you don't like is the road to the destruction of our republic.



Slander? How? What lie did they tell? Their OPINION (opinions aren't truth or lies) is that God struck them down. Their only stated FACT is that the US has homosexuals in it. Well. . .duh. That's true, so that's not slander.

Further, you can't slander a dead guy. To prove slander you have to show that your lie hurt the person. You can't hurt a dead guy, so that's out the window.

Harassment is legally defined as the continued and/or systematic unwanted and annoying actions of one party to another (here comes the important part) including threats or demands

These guys aren't threatening anyone (stop right there, I know what you're going to say, and no they are not threatening anyone through god) and they're not making demands of the funeral goers. They are not guilty of harassment.

You have a gross misunderstanding of how the law works. The law says you can protest. It does not say you can only protest in government-sanctioned zones. Any attempt to pass a law that forces protestors to avoid certain places is in violation of the 1st amendment.


Nope, that's arson, and setting a fire in an unauthorized place. Now if they wanted to bring a cross that LOOKED like it was on fire and wander around a park with it, they'd be free and clear to do so. They can bring their nazi flags. I've got proof of that - I've covered white supremicist rallys in parks, and they had all that crap out there, and the cops didn't do anything to stop them because it's ILLEGAL to stop that. I know that YOU want to suppress speech that upsets you, but that doesn't mean that it's legal for you to do it.


Um. First off, you're being idiotic here. Sorry for the direct slam, but if the shoe fits. . .

Second, of course I wouldn't enjoy it. And if you bothered reading and comprehending my posts you'd see that I understand THEY don't enjoy the protests at the funerals. But I wouldn't have the right to stop them from picketing as long as they were on public property.

Again, I know that YOU want to suppress people's constitutional rights when their message does not agree with YOUR opinion, but it is fortunately not legal for you to do that.


Then don't fight against what you claim to fight for. Stop advocating the oppression of people who do things you don't like.

Bullshit. They are not. Read the article again. Read it very carefully. Read the part where it says the protestors claim the soldiers died BECAUSE THE COUNTRY HARBORS HOMOSEXUALS. They aren't even accusing the soldier of being homosexual. Read, carefully, before you comment.

And second, they have the right to protest individuals too. People protest Bill Gates all the time. Should we stop them?


Then what was the point of comparing the protestors to a murderer?



Learn your legal terms. Verbal assault is not legal. I cannot go up to you and tell you I am going to kill you. That's verbal assault. I CAN call you a jerk. You might not like it, but I'm allowed to do that. But calling you a jerk is not verbal assault.

Well unfortunately it came across as you wanting to make what they are doing illegal because you feel what they are doing is immoral.

That was not a suitable counter to their motives because they aren't hiding behind anything. They have the right to do what they are doing. And they are doing it. I'm sorry that it offends you, but the law does not and should not care.

Not necessarilly. Here's an example. YOU are going to die. I don't know when, but one day you will die. Do you feel threatened by me because I said that?

Er. OK. And I'll tell you now that if you go find a gang member and punch him in the face, he'll probably kill you too. I'm not threatening you. I'm telling you what I think will happen if you do a certain action. These guys think god will kill them because of what they, or others, are doing. That's not a threat, that's a statement of opinion. It happens to be wrong, and total bullshit, but it's not a threat.



What you need to understand is that things aren't illegal just because someone doesn't like them. If that were the case, everything would be against the law. Just because you do not like something does not mean that it is, or should be, illegal.

I don't like the fact that you are voicing the opinion that people's first amendment rights should be trampled. But you have the first amendment right to voice that opinion. Isn't that ironic.

The_Jazz

And the big difference here was that Toyko Rose (and her German counterparts) was actually paid by the Japanese. She was tried and convicted of treason, but the testimony used agaisnt her was suspect at best, and there is evidence that she was forced into the role with threats and force. http://www.earthstation1.com/Tokyo_Rose.html

There is a huge difference between agreeing with the enemy's points and actually aiding them. They are mutually exclusive, and it should be very easy to see. The First Amendment gives you the right to shout from the mountaintops that Osama bin Ladin is the Second Coming and that we should dismantle Western society and follow him to the Promised Land. You can put that on a sign and organize a Fourth of July parade around it if you want. However, the moment that you threaten an individual with bodily harm, you are over the line.

You do realize that there has a Communist Party in the US for over 100 years, right? The McCarthy hearings with HUAC were basically all about supressing people's First Amendment rights to believe what they wanted and discuss it with who they wanted. Swap out "communist" and "terrorist-sympathizer" and the situation is pretty similar, right? If you can see that and understand that this is all protected speach, you're just an idiot. And see - that's protected speach too. I can call you an idiot all day long, which would make me more of an asshole than I'm comfortable with, but it's still protected speach. Americans have the right to be assholes, jerks, morons, dumbasses, saints, angels and geeks, and we practice it every day. When I call you an idiot, you have the right to ignore me, which is the mature thing to do. However, if I say that I'm going to kill the Vice President because I don't like bald me, that's over the line. It's not a fine line and it's pretty bold.

You do have the right to come take a dump on the sidewalk in front of my house as long as you don't expose yourself and you properly dispose of the waste afterwards so that there isn't a health hazard. It's not in good taste, but it's protected speach.

djtestudo

Here is what will happen one day:

During one of these funeral protests, some member of the bereaved will be walking past the crowd and get into a back-and-forth with some of the church members. That person will say something so inflammatory to the group's beliefs that they will be assaulted by the group.

That person will sue the group for a huge amount of money. The media will only report the assault and not what happened beforehand. Politicians will finally see a legal way to rid themselves of that scum and pressure for charges against the group and perhaps Phelps as well.

He will leave the country to escape the legal problems and end up being assasinated by a radical Islamic group somewhere else in the world.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

xepherys

Shakran-

I understand your points. I do NOT wish to trample on the First Ammendment. I'm all for people with different opinions. I understand that they are currently protected. I don't believe they should be. Not because I disagree with their message, but because I feel they are harming peopl in the process of distributing that message. Yes, it can be argued that harm is done to Black Americans by letting the KKK hold rallies. I prefer to believe there is a difference between a hate group holding a public rally, and a hate group protesting near a private event that is not DIRECTLY TIED to what they are protesting against. Are they against the soldiers? I say yes, but you seem to disagree. If they are NOT against the soldiers, how does their protesting at the funerals tie into their point? Wouldn't public protests at points of legislation be more effective. While they basically admit to just wanting press, they'd get it either way. The way they are going about their business, however, DIRECTLY harms their cause... which I understand is certainly not illegal. But it also DIRECTLY harms the lives of the mourners invovled.

As a side note, while it has nothing to do with laws, the book they are using to call us all sinners would not have them desecrating a sacred event such as a funeral either. Again, not a legal matter, just another point of irritation.

I still don't agree that my wishes would trample first ammendment rights. They're free to hate. They're free to march, picket, rally, et cetera. I do NOT see how time or distance laws are anti-First Amendment. Perhaps someone just needs to shed some light on it for me. *shrug*