Full Version: Congress Restricts Federal Funeral Protests
Yesterday, Congress placed severe restrictions on the ability for people to protest during Funerals at National Cemeteries. (CNN)
Questions for Debate:
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
QUOTE
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 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.
Questions for Debate:
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
As vile as almost everybody finds the actions of Phelps and his tiny cult, I have to defend their right to stage peaceful protests in public places. (If they were actually disrupting the funeral -- something other than just offending those who are attending -- that's another matter entirely. The same would be true if they were to trespass on private property.) I have to admit that I am more than a little disturbed at a Federal law which is clearly designed to restrict the actions of one small group. So, yes, I think this law is a violation of the First Amendment, and that it will be so decided when it reaches the Supreme Court.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second question. If you are asking if political speech merits stronger protection than other kinds of speech, I believe that this is generally conceded. (This doesn't mean that I support any but the most necessary restrictions on other kinds of speech.)
As long as a protest does not interfere with the taxpayer funded activity, I see no reason to ban it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the second question. If you are asking if political speech merits stronger protection than other kinds of speech, I believe that this is generally conceded. (This doesn't mean that I support any but the most necessary restrictions on other kinds of speech.)
As long as a protest does not interfere with the taxpayer funded activity, I see no reason to ban it.
I don't believe this violates the 1st amendment as I believe this is similar to yelling FIRE in a movie theatre. The people attending these funerals can be devastated at the loss of a loved one and I would argue some not being able to control themselves at the site of the scumbag Phelps and his crew with signs proclaiming God is happy their loved one is dead.
I wonder when common decency will rise above people yelling "FREE SPEECH, FREE SPEECH, FREE SPEECH".
Generally protests are geared towards a larger group or very high ranking government official... But Phelps is targeting 'single' dead soldiers(and their family) with his protests.
60 minutes after the funeral he can protest all he wants. But not while the family is there mourning their loss.
I wonder when common decency will rise above people yelling "FREE SPEECH, FREE SPEECH, FREE SPEECH".
Generally protests are geared towards a larger group or very high ranking government official... But Phelps is targeting 'single' dead soldiers(and their family) with his protests.
60 minutes after the funeral he can protest all he wants. But not while the family is there mourning their loss.
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
Possibly. But isn't this being done already in many other places? "Free speech zones" at Bush appearences and so forth. That of course doesn't mean its right, but its hardly the first time we see something like this.
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
No. No speech is inherently more deserving to be protected than others. The right to free speech should be defended vigorously, no matter its nature.
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
No, but they should be allowed to restrict access. I doubt Phelps and the two other (family)members of his club are invited to these funerals, and since I consider a funeral a private event (no matter how it is funded and where it is taking place), then I don't see why he should be allowed near it if the owner of the cemetary (in this case the US government) thinks otherwise, especially if his only goal is to offend people. Most federal land and federal buildnings are already impossible to access for common people, even though they help fund their upkeep, so I see nothing revolutionary in this.
Its important that we recognize, that this restriction should not apply outside federal property. In the public space Phelps, no matter how much I utterly despise the likes of him, should be allowed to protest all he wants.
Possibly. But isn't this being done already in many other places? "Free speech zones" at Bush appearences and so forth. That of course doesn't mean its right, but its hardly the first time we see something like this.
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
No. No speech is inherently more deserving to be protected than others. The right to free speech should be defended vigorously, no matter its nature.
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
No, but they should be allowed to restrict access. I doubt Phelps and the two other (family)members of his club are invited to these funerals, and since I consider a funeral a private event (no matter how it is funded and where it is taking place), then I don't see why he should be allowed near it if the owner of the cemetary (in this case the US government) thinks otherwise, especially if his only goal is to offend people. Most federal land and federal buildnings are already impossible to access for common people, even though they help fund their upkeep, so I see nothing revolutionary in this.
Its important that we recognize, that this restriction should not apply outside federal property. In the public space Phelps, no matter how much I utterly despise the likes of him, should be allowed to protest all he wants.
Getting me back into the debates...thanks Doc. 
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
I agree with Vicki and Carlsen. I honestly am curious how our Congress folks can justify this new law against the wording of the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." Congress has no authority to pass a law like this and they have clearly overstepped their bounds.
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
I found a useful site set up by the University of Missouri-Kanas City Law School that provides a basic understanding of the various types of judicial scrutiny that exist in regards to the 1st Amendment. In short:
It appears the legal precedent in this regard is Feiner v New York in which the Court upheld the conviction of a guy with a megaphone on a public street corner who refused police orders to stop speaking when street corner audience became rowdy and threatened to attack the speaker. I tend to disagree with this opinion. I find it disturbing that what appears to be 'fightin' words' is enough to squash our inherent right. The police should have arrested anyone who became violent. Afterall, assault and battery are clearly against the law. Speech is not (supposed to be).
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
Of course not. It's our money that is spent and we should be allowed to partake in its use any way we please, provided it infringes upon no others.
Just as a general note, I think what the Patriot Guard Riders are doing in response to the vile speech of Phelps is spot on. They have taken it upon themselves to engage in a non-violent battle of philosophies. No laws were needed here. This was being taken care of by itself. It grows more and more frustrating that Congress acts as if they need to create a law to govern every little action. It never ends, and now they've abridged the one law that they were clearly never allowed to abridge.
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
I agree with Vicki and Carlsen. I honestly am curious how our Congress folks can justify this new law against the wording of the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." Congress has no authority to pass a law like this and they have clearly overstepped their bounds.
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
I found a useful site set up by the University of Missouri-Kanas City Law School that provides a basic understanding of the various types of judicial scrutiny that exist in regards to the 1st Amendment. In short:
QUOTE
Although content-based restrictions on speech in the public forum are subject to strict judicial scrutiny (usually a requirement that the restriction serve a compelling state interest and that there is no way of serving the interest that is less speech-restrictive), content-neutral restrictions on speech are subject to only intermediate scrutiny. In general, the government must show that the law serves an important objective (not involving the suppression of speech), that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there remain ample alternative means of communication. (Time Place and Manner Regulations and the First Amendment)
It appears the legal precedent in this regard is Feiner v New York in which the Court upheld the conviction of a guy with a megaphone on a public street corner who refused police orders to stop speaking when street corner audience became rowdy and threatened to attack the speaker. I tend to disagree with this opinion. I find it disturbing that what appears to be 'fightin' words' is enough to squash our inherent right. The police should have arrested anyone who became violent. Afterall, assault and battery are clearly against the law. Speech is not (supposed to be).
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
Of course not. It's our money that is spent and we should be allowed to partake in its use any way we please, provided it infringes upon no others.
Just as a general note, I think what the Patriot Guard Riders are doing in response to the vile speech of Phelps is spot on. They have taken it upon themselves to engage in a non-violent battle of philosophies. No laws were needed here. This was being taken care of by itself. It grows more and more frustrating that Congress acts as if they need to create a law to govern every little action. It never ends, and now they've abridged the one law that they were clearly never allowed to abridge.
QUOTE(Jaime @ May 25 2006, 10:44 PM)
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
I agree with Vicki and Carlsen. I honestly am curious how our Congress folks can justify this new law against the wording of the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." Congress has no authority to pass a law like this and they have clearly overstepped their bounds.
I disagree. Do I have the right to "peaceably assemble" in the middle of the public highway? Can I take over the Congressional proceedings with a bull horn offering my own filibuster? There is nothing wrong with restricting speech to a certain area away from the funeral proceedings, and there is plenty of precedent. Frankly, I think the argument on behalf of "fighting words" and maintaining public order is a good one to be made in this case. If it were my husband's funeral (God forbid, knock on wood), I would likely react violently to having a religious cult interrupting the proceedings with chants and shouting.
Edited to add: Like price-gougin during an emergency, this is a situation when normally non-violent people would react violently. And the government's response should be.."Sorry, if only he weren't a soldier being buried at Arlington Cemetery...things would be different on your private family plot." Come on people, Good grief! (pun intended)
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
I would have to agree with Jaime, et al., on this one. As vile as I may find Phelps and his ilk (and please don't let me near him with a loaded weapon), so long as their protests are not disorderly enough to cause an obstruction nor obtrusive enough to disrupt an event (infringing on the free speech rights of others), then there should be no restriction. In the immortal (and, by the way, apocryphal) words of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but the nature of speech should not be relevant to its scrutiny. If anything, political speech should be more worthy of protection.
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
No, it should not. Federal property is our property. If we can't speak freely there, then where??
I would have to agree with Jaime, et al., on this one. As vile as I may find Phelps and his ilk (and please don't let me near him with a loaded weapon), so long as their protests are not disorderly enough to cause an obstruction nor obtrusive enough to disrupt an event (infringing on the free speech rights of others), then there should be no restriction. In the immortal (and, by the way, apocryphal) words of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but the nature of speech should not be relevant to its scrutiny. If anything, political speech should be more worthy of protection.
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
No, it should not. Federal property is our property. If we can't speak freely there, then where??
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
No. Just the appearance of restricting free speech does not make it so. It's up to the courts to decide.
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
Why do you think this protesting is political in nature? Phelps has made no indication of this. He has no political agenda whatsoever. Phelps hates homosexuality and abortion, so he has created his god in his own image. His message is that his god hates the same things he hates. There's nothing political about that.
There is something psychological about it, however. The guy should be, and I'm sure he is being, watched closely.
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
No. However, the government can get away with it until challenged in court, which makes me wonder, who would challenge this law?
Not me. I don't care if they throw Phelps in the slammer for life on the grounds of being an insufferable and miserable excuse for a human being.
No. Just the appearance of restricting free speech does not make it so. It's up to the courts to decide.
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
Why do you think this protesting is political in nature? Phelps has made no indication of this. He has no political agenda whatsoever. Phelps hates homosexuality and abortion, so he has created his god in his own image. His message is that his god hates the same things he hates. There's nothing political about that.
There is something psychological about it, however. The guy should be, and I'm sure he is being, watched closely.
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?
No. However, the government can get away with it until challenged in court, which makes me wonder, who would challenge this law?
Not me. I don't care if they throw Phelps in the slammer for life on the grounds of being an insufferable and miserable excuse for a human being.
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 26 2006, 08:33 AM)
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
I would have to agree with Jaime, et al., on this one. As vile as I may find Phelps and his ilk (and please don't let me near him with a loaded weapon), so long as their protests are not disorderly enough to cause an obstruction nor obtrusive enough to disrupt an event (infringing on the free speech rights of others), then there should be no restriction. In the immortal (and, by the way, apocryphal) words of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I would have to agree with Jaime, et al., on this one. As vile as I may find Phelps and his ilk (and please don't let me near him with a loaded weapon), so long as their protests are not disorderly enough to cause an obstruction nor obtrusive enough to disrupt an event (infringing on the free speech rights of others), then there should be no restriction. In the immortal (and, by the way, apocryphal) words of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
They can say whatever they like, but they don't necessarily reserve the right to do so during a funeral service. I can't understand this reasoning (not yours specifically, I don't understand the majority in this thread). Example: The Wyoming student hate crime. State officials barred protesting within a certain area of the proceedings. You honestly disagree with this ruling?
QUOTE
"We've never faced this before," he said. "One of the things we're trying to do, besides protecting those who want to protest on both sides, is protecting family and relatives to allow them to breathe in peace."
The ordinance bans people from picketing on sidewalks, streets, and other areas next to the memorial service. It prohibits protesting on public property within 50 feet of the service.
The ordinance bans people from picketing on sidewalks, streets, and other areas next to the memorial service. It prohibits protesting on public property within 50 feet of the service.
Don't our soldiers and their families deserve the same courtesy?
Let me respond in detail to those with whom I respectfully disagree on this issue. (I can't seem to make the quote function work, so I have used quotation marks.)
Sleeper:
"I don't believe this violates the 1st amendment as I believe this is similar to yelling FIRE in a movie theatre. The people attending these funerals can be devastated at the loss of a loved one and I would argue some not being able to control themselves at the site of the scumbag Phelps and his crew with signs proclaiming God is happy their loved one is dead."
The contention here seems to be that certain opinions are intolerable because it is impossible to avoid reacting to them violently. (By the way, the problem with the familiar analogy of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room is that it is speech which has no purpose at all except to provoke action which endangers others.)
Let's take a look at Feiner v New York, the case cited by Jaime:
"When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious.
. . .
We are well aware that the ordinary murmurings and objections of a hostile audience cannot be allowed to silence a speaker, and are also mindful of the possible danger of giving overzealous police officials complete discretion to break up otherwise lawful public meetings."
I would contend that the protests by Phelps do not, in and of themselves, constitute a "clear and present danger" or an "immediate threat." This is also why I do not support laws against "hate speech." Once the protest goes beyond the limits of expressing an opinion, into intefering with the peaceful activites of others, then law enforcement can step in -- but not before.
Mrs Pigpen:
"I disagree. Do I have the right to "peaceably assemble" in the middle of the public highway? Can I take over the Congressional proceedings with a bull horn offering my own filibuster? There is nothing wrong with restricting speech to a certain area away from the funeral proceedings, and there is plenty of precedent. Frankly, I think the argument on behalf of "fighting words" and maintaining public order is a good one to be made in this case."
In the examples cited, there is indeed a "clear and present danger" to "public safety, peace, and order." In my opinion, only the most extreme examples of "fighting words" which offer an immediate threat of danger (for example, "I am going to kill you!") can be restricted in order to maintain order. You should not be able to restrict "fighting words" that only express a hateful opinion (for example, "God hates [insulting term].")
(And I do disagree with the Wyoming law.)
AuthorMusician:
"Why do you think this protesting is political in nature? Phelps has made no indication of this. He has no political agenda whatsoever. Phelps hates homosexuality and abortion, so he has created his god in his own image. His message is that his god hates the same things he hates. There's nothing political about that."
I can't agree. Is my own opinion that same-sex relationships should have the same status as opposite-sex relationships "non-political"? Should that opinion be restricted, just because it offends some people?
"No. However, the government can get away with it until challenged in court, which makes me wonder, who would challenge this law?
Not me. I don't care if they throw Phelps in the slammer for life on the grounds of being an insufferable and miserable excuse for a human being."
I would gladly support a challenge of this law, and I hope the ACLU speaks up for Phelps. Being a nasty person is no reason to lock someone up. That requires actions that do direct harm to others. (When it comes to the legal system, we cannot include being offended, insulted, or emotionally upset as "direct harm." This does not mean that I do not understand the power of such things; but there are ways to react to those who do them other than legal punishment. In particular, I think the best thing that could be done to "punish" Phelps would be to ignore him.)
Sleeper:
"I don't believe this violates the 1st amendment as I believe this is similar to yelling FIRE in a movie theatre. The people attending these funerals can be devastated at the loss of a loved one and I would argue some not being able to control themselves at the site of the scumbag Phelps and his crew with signs proclaiming God is happy their loved one is dead."
The contention here seems to be that certain opinions are intolerable because it is impossible to avoid reacting to them violently. (By the way, the problem with the familiar analogy of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room is that it is speech which has no purpose at all except to provoke action which endangers others.)
Let's take a look at Feiner v New York, the case cited by Jaime:
"When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order, appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious.
. . .
We are well aware that the ordinary murmurings and objections of a hostile audience cannot be allowed to silence a speaker, and are also mindful of the possible danger of giving overzealous police officials complete discretion to break up otherwise lawful public meetings."
I would contend that the protests by Phelps do not, in and of themselves, constitute a "clear and present danger" or an "immediate threat." This is also why I do not support laws against "hate speech." Once the protest goes beyond the limits of expressing an opinion, into intefering with the peaceful activites of others, then law enforcement can step in -- but not before.
Mrs Pigpen:
"I disagree. Do I have the right to "peaceably assemble" in the middle of the public highway? Can I take over the Congressional proceedings with a bull horn offering my own filibuster? There is nothing wrong with restricting speech to a certain area away from the funeral proceedings, and there is plenty of precedent. Frankly, I think the argument on behalf of "fighting words" and maintaining public order is a good one to be made in this case."
In the examples cited, there is indeed a "clear and present danger" to "public safety, peace, and order." In my opinion, only the most extreme examples of "fighting words" which offer an immediate threat of danger (for example, "I am going to kill you!") can be restricted in order to maintain order. You should not be able to restrict "fighting words" that only express a hateful opinion (for example, "God hates [insulting term].")
(And I do disagree with the Wyoming law.)
AuthorMusician:
"Why do you think this protesting is political in nature? Phelps has made no indication of this. He has no political agenda whatsoever. Phelps hates homosexuality and abortion, so he has created his god in his own image. His message is that his god hates the same things he hates. There's nothing political about that."
I can't agree. Is my own opinion that same-sex relationships should have the same status as opposite-sex relationships "non-political"? Should that opinion be restricted, just because it offends some people?
"No. However, the government can get away with it until challenged in court, which makes me wonder, who would challenge this law?
Not me. I don't care if they throw Phelps in the slammer for life on the grounds of being an insufferable and miserable excuse for a human being."
I would gladly support a challenge of this law, and I hope the ACLU speaks up for Phelps. Being a nasty person is no reason to lock someone up. That requires actions that do direct harm to others. (When it comes to the legal system, we cannot include being offended, insulted, or emotionally upset as "direct harm." This does not mean that I do not understand the power of such things; but there are ways to react to those who do them other than legal punishment. In particular, I think the best thing that could be done to "punish" Phelps would be to ignore him.)
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ May 26 2006, 12:14 PM)
Mrs Pigpen:
"I disagree. Do I have the right to "peaceably assemble" in the middle of the public highway? Can I take over the Congressional proceedings with a bull horn offering my own filibuster? There is nothing wrong with restricting speech to a certain area away from the funeral proceedings, and there is plenty of precedent. Frankly, I think the argument on behalf of "fighting words" and maintaining public order is a good one to be made in this case."
In the examples cited, there is indeed a "clear and present danger" to "public safety, peace, and order." In my opinion, only the most extreme examples of "fighting words" which offer an immediate threat of danger (for example, "I am going to kill you!") can be restricted in order to maintain order. You should not be able to restrict "fighting words" that only express a hateful opinion (for example, "God hates [insulting term].")
(And I do disagree with the Wyoming law.)
"I disagree. Do I have the right to "peaceably assemble" in the middle of the public highway? Can I take over the Congressional proceedings with a bull horn offering my own filibuster? There is nothing wrong with restricting speech to a certain area away from the funeral proceedings, and there is plenty of precedent. Frankly, I think the argument on behalf of "fighting words" and maintaining public order is a good one to be made in this case."
In the examples cited, there is indeed a "clear and present danger" to "public safety, peace, and order." In my opinion, only the most extreme examples of "fighting words" which offer an immediate threat of danger (for example, "I am going to kill you!") can be restricted in order to maintain order. You should not be able to restrict "fighting words" that only express a hateful opinion (for example, "God hates [insulting term].")
(And I do disagree with the Wyoming law.)
Suppose the expression of hateful opinion is offered during a private ceremony? Should Ku Klux Klan members be free to show up and burn a flag on the "federal" lawn of a black slain soldier during a private funeral ceremony? You simply draw the line...where? When is the line between "clear and present danger" and simple "insult" drawn? You honestly don't believe that cult members invading the funeral of a hate crime victim would have resulted in a violent outcome? Honestly? I can tell you that I would react violently in such a situation.
Reality check. Let's all just reflect on the actual intent of the first amendment. Did our founding fathers want us to crash funeral services in protest? Is this the line where "freedom" and oppression" meet? I think not.
Gosh, I don't want, nor do I expect, photographers to take pictures of me when I'm in the bathroom at the Smithsonian either. Though it is technically public property..is that a violation of "freedom" too?
(Quote function messed up again. Quotes from Mrs Pigpen appear in bold.)
Suppose the expression of hateful opinion is offered during a private ceremony?
Let's make it clear here that nobody has the right to enter private property without permission for the purpose of making a protest. We're only talking about public property. So, a "private" ceremony on "public" property? Yes, protest should be allowed.
Should Ku Klux Klan members be free to show up and burn a flag on the "federal" lawn of a black slain soldier during a private funeral ceremony?
Well, if they are on public property, and are otherwise obeying appropriate restrictions (i.e. burning their own flag) I would allow this.
You simply draw the line...where? When is the line between "clear and present danger" and simple "insult" drawn? You honestly don't believe that cult members invading the funeral of a hate crime victim would have resulted in a violent outcome? Honestly? I can tell you that I would react violently in such a situation.
I certainly admit that this is a difficult distinction to make. When in doubt, I have to lean towards as much free speech as possible. (I have tried to do some research to see whether violence has ever actually erupted when Phelps has protested. I have been unable to find anything. I can only assume that I would have been able to find some news report if this had happened, but I could certainly be wrong.)
Gosh, I don't want, nor do I expect, photographers to take pictures of me when I'm in the bathroom at the Smithsonian either. Though it is technically public property..is that a violation of "freedom" too?
Apples and oranges. As you can tell, I am pretty fanatical about free speech. I am also pretty fanatical about privacy. The two are not opposed. (The privacy aspect is one reason why protesters cannot enter a funeral home without permission, but are restricted to public property.)
Suppose the expression of hateful opinion is offered during a private ceremony?
Let's make it clear here that nobody has the right to enter private property without permission for the purpose of making a protest. We're only talking about public property. So, a "private" ceremony on "public" property? Yes, protest should be allowed.
Should Ku Klux Klan members be free to show up and burn a flag on the "federal" lawn of a black slain soldier during a private funeral ceremony?
Well, if they are on public property, and are otherwise obeying appropriate restrictions (i.e. burning their own flag) I would allow this.
You simply draw the line...where? When is the line between "clear and present danger" and simple "insult" drawn? You honestly don't believe that cult members invading the funeral of a hate crime victim would have resulted in a violent outcome? Honestly? I can tell you that I would react violently in such a situation.
I certainly admit that this is a difficult distinction to make. When in doubt, I have to lean towards as much free speech as possible. (I have tried to do some research to see whether violence has ever actually erupted when Phelps has protested. I have been unable to find anything. I can only assume that I would have been able to find some news report if this had happened, but I could certainly be wrong.)
Gosh, I don't want, nor do I expect, photographers to take pictures of me when I'm in the bathroom at the Smithsonian either. Though it is technically public property..is that a violation of "freedom" too?
Apples and oranges. As you can tell, I am pretty fanatical about free speech. I am also pretty fanatical about privacy. The two are not opposed. (The privacy aspect is one reason why protesters cannot enter a funeral home without permission, but are restricted to public property.)
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ May 26 2006, 02:14 PM)
Gosh, I don't want, nor do I expect, photographers to take pictures of me when I'm in the bathroom at the Smithsonian either. Though it is technically public property..is that a violation of "freedom" too?
Apples and oranges. As you can tell, I am pretty fanatical about free speech. I am also pretty fanatical about privacy. The two are not opposed. (The privacy aspect is one reason why protesters cannot enter a funeral home without permission, but are restricted to public property.)
Apples and oranges. As you can tell, I am pretty fanatical about free speech. I am also pretty fanatical about privacy. The two are not opposed. (The privacy aspect is one reason why protesters cannot enter a funeral home without permission, but are restricted to public property.)
Well, I don't see why this is apples and oranges. I have an expectation of privacy when I'm in a public restroom, which is public property, and I would have an expectation of being free from harassment when I'm at the funeral of a loved one, even if it were on public property.
We don't permit "free speech" when it comes to harassment on the job in the public workforce, but it is perfectly fine for someone to harass a widow at a funeral? "Glad your husband's head was blown off, lady! You have a nice can! Call me when you want it..." That sort of thing? I just have to shake my head here, I cannot understand this for the life of me.
Edited to add: Thanks, Carlsen, I believe you are right (in the post below). Scratch my "public" for "federal" above.
The bottom line is, I don't understand why this seems to be viewed as some extreme boundary...the "By golly! If we don't allow people to be harassed with impunity at funerals we are opening pandora's box to all sorts of free speech violations"...we have limits to speech and expression for such things all of the time. I cannot exercise my "freedom of expression" by spraypainting the Lincoln memorial. I will be removed if I harass the passersby, or engage in lewd conduct, ect...
I think its important that we make a distinction between federal property and public property...... there is a subtle difference. Noone has an inherent right, to my knowledge, to get access to federal property, ie federal buildings, federal cemetaries and so forth. I would suspect Arlington cemetary closes as night (I know some famous cemetaries here in Denmark that close at night, as to avoid vandalism and so forth etc.), my point being, that keeping people of federal property is valid under some circumstances. I can't wander onto the top floor of the FBI building without permission either, and if the federal officials responsible for federal cemetaries chooses to deny access to Phelps or anyone else, because they disrupt the proceedings there, then I think that is fine and legal. If anyone wants to protest, they can do it outside the cemetary on public property.
Of course, ideally and in principle every citizen should have equal access to something they have helped fund, including federal cemetaries, but thats hardly ever a reality.
Of course, ideally and in principle every citizen should have equal access to something they have helped fund, including federal cemetaries, but thats hardly ever a reality.
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
I don't believe so. I'm an ardent supporter of free speech, but there has to be circumstances where civility and decency trump the right to disrupt any and all facets of peoples lives. If a family cannot grieve and mourn a fallen loved one for a few moments in relative peace, in the name of preserving freedom of speech, then are we as a society even still deserving of that right?
Mr. Phelps and his ilk practice their bizarre strain of worship just down the highway from where I currently live, and the thought has crossed my mind many times of organizing a similar style of protest during one of their services.
I would cut Mr. Phelps a deal however, he could retain the right to protest funerals and in return, friends, family and concerned citizens could retain the right to form a human wall and gently push them and their 'God Hates Fags' placards into the nearest busy thoroughfare.
I don't believe so. I'm an ardent supporter of free speech, but there has to be circumstances where civility and decency trump the right to disrupt any and all facets of peoples lives. If a family cannot grieve and mourn a fallen loved one for a few moments in relative peace, in the name of preserving freedom of speech, then are we as a society even still deserving of that right?
Mr. Phelps and his ilk practice their bizarre strain of worship just down the highway from where I currently live, and the thought has crossed my mind many times of organizing a similar style of protest during one of their services.
I would cut Mr. Phelps a deal however, he could retain the right to protest funerals and in return, friends, family and concerned citizens could retain the right to form a human wall and gently push them and their 'God Hates Fags' placards into the nearest busy thoroughfare.
Victoria, here we are again with differing opinions. Cool, that's what debate is about, isn't it.
Preambling: I don't take offense about those who have differing opinions from my own. I do take offense over those who purposefully denigrate good people. This action gets my hackles up, like when in grade school the kids tried to demonize this one other kid. That kid and I became good friends, and due to my intimidating size, suddenly politeness came about. It did take a few shoulder flips though.
We can talk absolutes about civil rights, but every civil right has limitations to its exercise. The trite old example is yelling FIRE! in a crowded place, thus causing a panicked stampede that results in physical injury and/or death. Another one is poisoning a stream, even though it's private property. Yet another one is trespassing on federal land, sometimes called military bases.
However, and this is my whole point, when people are in the state of mourning, their vulnerability is extremely high. Those of us who have an instinct for defending the defenseless show up to help, yet the attacks keep on coming. Eventually, the defenders take the offense, being sick to death with the hateful and cruel behavior of others. This is not my opinion. It is how people work.
In another thread, we're exploring the limits to the freedom of religion. We do have laws that limit this freedom, as I've listed there, at least those that I know about. There are probably others. Here, the issue is freedom of speech.
Abortion protests are limited now, and it took a long time to get this restriction through. Many good people lost their lives before this was done. Here we see a similar thing happening. Phelps is the first one, but if he continues to get away with his behavior, there will be others. Apparently, his big thing is hatred of homosexuals. Can't make that illegal, but we can make certain behaviors illegal.
I don't care if these people need to make signs and stomp on flags. But I do care that they should be held back from doing this in sight of any funeral proceedings anywhere: not at the funeral home, not along the funeral route, not at the church or wherever, not at the cemetery, and not at the homes of those in mourning. And I don't care who owns the land or building.
Phelps and his minions are trying to hurt people, at which I'm pretty sure they are successful. They are also trying to get others to lose their cool and attack. Sure, then these attackers are in the wrong! Ha ha. They go to the slammer, not the Phelps gang.
Provoking violence is against the law. We can leave causing offense to still be lawful, but once violence starts up, we need to stop it before the issue escalates. So far the violence has been thrown eggs and smashed van windows. The next step will likely be fists flying or some vehicle crashing into Phelps and crew. Granted, whoever does this has lost control. Still, how much can we expect humans to take? The law has to at some point face cause and effect.
They are begging for it. Let's make them beg a long ways away. I'm seeing a spot behind a Wal*Mart near the grocery dumpsters on a hot summer's day when the fish get tossed. Seems downright symbolic
Preambling: I don't take offense about those who have differing opinions from my own. I do take offense over those who purposefully denigrate good people. This action gets my hackles up, like when in grade school the kids tried to demonize this one other kid. That kid and I became good friends, and due to my intimidating size, suddenly politeness came about. It did take a few shoulder flips though.
We can talk absolutes about civil rights, but every civil right has limitations to its exercise. The trite old example is yelling FIRE! in a crowded place, thus causing a panicked stampede that results in physical injury and/or death. Another one is poisoning a stream, even though it's private property. Yet another one is trespassing on federal land, sometimes called military bases.
However, and this is my whole point, when people are in the state of mourning, their vulnerability is extremely high. Those of us who have an instinct for defending the defenseless show up to help, yet the attacks keep on coming. Eventually, the defenders take the offense, being sick to death with the hateful and cruel behavior of others. This is not my opinion. It is how people work.
In another thread, we're exploring the limits to the freedom of religion. We do have laws that limit this freedom, as I've listed there, at least those that I know about. There are probably others. Here, the issue is freedom of speech.
Abortion protests are limited now, and it took a long time to get this restriction through. Many good people lost their lives before this was done. Here we see a similar thing happening. Phelps is the first one, but if he continues to get away with his behavior, there will be others. Apparently, his big thing is hatred of homosexuals. Can't make that illegal, but we can make certain behaviors illegal.
I don't care if these people need to make signs and stomp on flags. But I do care that they should be held back from doing this in sight of any funeral proceedings anywhere: not at the funeral home, not along the funeral route, not at the church or wherever, not at the cemetery, and not at the homes of those in mourning. And I don't care who owns the land or building.
Phelps and his minions are trying to hurt people, at which I'm pretty sure they are successful. They are also trying to get others to lose their cool and attack. Sure, then these attackers are in the wrong! Ha ha. They go to the slammer, not the Phelps gang.
Provoking violence is against the law. We can leave causing offense to still be lawful, but once violence starts up, we need to stop it before the issue escalates. So far the violence has been thrown eggs and smashed van windows. The next step will likely be fists flying or some vehicle crashing into Phelps and crew. Granted, whoever does this has lost control. Still, how much can we expect humans to take? The law has to at some point face cause and effect.
They are begging for it. Let's make them beg a long ways away. I'm seeing a spot behind a Wal*Mart near the grocery dumpsters on a hot summer's day when the fish get tossed. Seems downright symbolic
Full opportunity exists under this Act and the amendments made by this Act
for the exercise of freedom of speech and other constitutional rights
at times other than
within one hour prior to or during the funeral of a member of the armed forces
and one hour following the conclusion of such a funeral.
S. 2452, March 16, 2006
for the exercise of freedom of speech and other constitutional rights
at times other than
within one hour prior to or during the funeral of a member of the armed forces
and one hour following the conclusion of such a funeral.
S. 2452, March 16, 2006
In other words, "we're only suspending the First Amendment for a few hours every time there's a funeral".
While I can certainly agree with the sentiments expressed by Mrs. P and Dontreadonme, both of whom (I hope) know that I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform and utter disdain for the likes of Fred Phelps, I still can't accept that this legislation is constitutional. I could understand setting limits on vocal protests proximate to a funeral service itself on the grounds that, by sheer volume alone, an audible protest could interfere with the free speech of those in attendance. But barring any form of "protest activity" along the entire route to a funeral and within 300 feet of an entire cemetery strikes me as excessive, even if the nature of the protests in question is odious in the extreme.
I also agree with the sentiment behind the legislation itself, but it is an addendum to the First Amendment. Sadly, perhaps, civility and decency are not prerequisite to free speech - nor to the actions of those claiming to be motivated by Christian love.
In any event, there are already laws in place that could be used to contend with Phelps and the like. Protestors along the route to Ronald Reagan's funeral were dragged from the crowd and had their signs confiscated on the grounds that their protest could "incite violence" from Reagan supporters. Why not simply apply the same rationale to the Phelps protests? I am sure that no law enforcement officer in the country would object to "keeping the peace" by quelling such provocation.
Incitement to violence or incitement to riot are reasonable exceptions to the First Amendment. Barring any "protest activities" - including offering someone a leaflet (or, presumably, a bunch of nuns praying for peace within a hundred yards of a cathedral) - is not a reasonable exception to the First Amendment. The only difference between existing legislation and the new bill is that the former actually waits until a crime has been committed and the latter is totally "preemptive". Oddly, this is the first time I've come across legislation that actually states that "if any provision of this Act... is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder... shall not be affected". Are they expecting it to be challenged??
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 28 2006, 04:57 AM)
I could understand setting limits on vocal protests proximate to a funeral service itself on the grounds that, by sheer volume alone, an audible protest could interfere with the free speech of those in attendance. But barring any form of "protest activity" along the entire route to a funeral and within 300 feet of an entire cemetery strikes me as excessive, even if the nature of the protests in question is odious in the extreme.
Although I didn't express as such in my earlier post, I think I agree with Wertz to a point. I'm not sure about the constitutionality of this bill, but I would not support banning shows of protest along a funeral route.
I certainly believe that the area surrounding a graveside service should be held as sacrosanct. Even those protesting would want and expect the same deference when attending a funeral for their family or loved ones.
Too often I believe groups protesting feel that their right to dissent automatically trumps anyone else's rights or wishes. In the increasingly polarized political climate, this effort to allow grieving in peace should not just be for fallen soldiers, but for everyone. It's not a stretch for me to believe that some groups would stage Phelps-esque protests at the graveside services of politicians or cultural icons. Phelps has held similar protests at the funerals of Barry Goldwater, Frank Sinatra and Bill Clinton's mother.
Kansas, among other states have already tackled this issue. The Kansas law outlaws protests within 500 feet of a funeral service, but acknowledges the protests can be conducted in other public spaces.
The ACLU seems to be in opposition to the various state laws that have been enacted, most of which call for buffer zones of around 300-500 feet around a service. Yet, not surprisingly sided with creating buffer zones around abortion clinics in response to protests. Maybe the right to choose without intimidation trumps the right to grieve without intimidation.
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 28 2006, 04:57 AM)
In other words, "we're only suspending the First Amendment for a few hours every time there's a funeral".
Why do people assume that the freedom to protest/speech includes the freedom to do that speech WHEREVER THE HECK they want to?
Why do these louses have the right to be right on top of a funeral to protest it?? Where does the law give them that right?
Sure, go ahead and protest. No one is going to stop you, just go do it ELSEWHERE. Is there a freedom that has been voided? NO!
Denying someone the right to protest, like when the soviet union or Iran kills people who go against the gov't, is what the framers had in mind, not holding TROUBLE MAKERS back from being right on top of a group of grieving people and shouting horrible things.
Why is location and time of such protests relevant?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 28 2006, 10:44 AM)
The ACLU seems to be in opposition to the various state laws that have been enacted, most of which call for buffer zones of around 300-500 feet around a service. Yet, not surprisingly sided with creating buffer zones around abortion clinics in response to protests. Maybe the right to choose without intimidation trumps the right to grieve without intimidation.
Do funeral personnel go to work every day wearing bullet-proof vests? Do they wear latex gloves and masks when they open the mail to make sure the contents don’t contain proof of Christian tolerance? Have survivors related to the dead soldiers had their pictures catalogued online, their personal information, such as medical information, posted as well?
Has someone at the funeral been assaulted by WBC? Has someone been denied access to services by WBC?
Has someone been blown to pieces at one of these ceremonies, or has someone related to the dead solider or funeral director witnessed a family member being gunned down by a high powered rifle in their own home?
No?
Ask Phelps to adopt the inciting rhetoric and forceful tactics of his pro-life contemporaries. If he accepts your comparison won’t look like apples and oranges.
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 02:44 PM)
Why is location and time of such protests relevant?
Are you serious? That’s like asking why protesters should have an interest in showing up on time for a political speech, or oral argument at the Supreme Court building.
300 or 500 feet away from the service itself is fine. The rest in this bill is feel-good bunk for politicians that should know better than try keeping protesters off cemeteries and sidewalks.
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 28 2006, 03:56 PM)
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 02:44 PM)
Why is location and time of such protests relevant?
Are you serious? That’s like asking why protesters should have an interest in showing up on time for a political speech, or oral argument at the Supreme Court building.
300 or 500 feet away from the service itself is fine. The rest in this bill is feel-good bunk for politicians that should know better than try keeping protesters off cemeteries and sidewalks.
No, I'm not kidding. WHy does location have anything to do with protesting? Seriously, what? Because no one will give a dump about you unless you're as annoying as hell? Is that why it's important?
Seriously, why is LOCATION important in a free speech? Unless you're condemned to a jail cell to voice your protest, why can't you protest a mile away??
I'd like a good explanation and not "are you serious". What kind of response is that?
IMHO, the only reason for freedom of press/speech/protest is to be able to assemble against something and voice your opinion.....it's not to FORCE your opinion on other people. So as long as you can protest, regardless of location, it shouldn't matter if you are restricted from being near a funeral, IMHO.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 28 2006, 10:44 AM)
I certainly believe that the area surrounding a graveside service should be held as sacrosanct. Even those protesting would want and expect the same deference when attending a funeral for their family or loved ones.
And here (returning the favor?), I would agree with you. I would say the same for a church or a mortuary or a crematorium or anywhere else a memorial service might be held.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 28 2006, 10:44 AM)
Too often I believe groups protesting feel that their right to dissent automatically trumps anyone else's rights or wishes. In the increasingly polarized political climate, this effort to allow grieving in peace should not just be for fallen soldiers, but for everyone. It's not a stretch for me to believe that some groups would stage Phelps-esque protests at the graveside services of politicians or cultural icons. Phelps has held similar protests at the funerals of Barry Goldwater, Frank Sinatra and Bill Clinton's mother.
Phelps also brought his "Love Crusade" to the funeral of Matthew Shepard. When he returned for the trial of Shepard's murderers, a group of Laramie residents, spearheaded by Romaine Patterson, staged a counter-protest: Angel Action. Dressed as angels with expansive wings, they stood silent in front of the Phelps protesters, concealing their placards from the crowd - and the cameras. This sort of action, like those of the Patriot Guard Riders that Jaime cited, strikes me as being a more appropriate response than passing constitutionally dubious legislation (so far) tailored to one group.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 02:44 PM)
Why do people assume that the freedom to protest/speech includes the freedom to do that speech WHEREVER THE HECK they want to?
Who the heck is making that assumption? Several people, myself included, have made reference to many exceptions to the First Amendment. I don't believe anyone has argued that protests should be allowed "right on top of a funeral" and several of those who don't endorse this legislation, myself included, have agreed that there is nothing wrong with establishing some perimeters to prevent protests from infringing on the rights of others. In terms of how free speech is exercised, there have also been several exceptions cited - from the old "Fire!"-in-the-theater chestnut to incitement, obstruction, and potential threats to public safety, peace, or order. Your man is, how you say, made of straw.
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 02:44 PM)
Why is location and time of such protests relevant?
Protests tend to target either time-specific events (speeches, funerals, parades, public appearances by various officials) or specific locations (clinics, churches, embassies, power plants). To remove the location and time from such protests is to render them meaningless. It takes the "freedom" out of "freedom of speech".
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 06:03 PM)
So as long as you can protest, regardless of location, it shouldn't matter if you are restricted from being near a funeral, IMHO.
Shall I assume then you also support no-protest buffer zones around abortion clinics, politicians, and political events? In short, do you think the Constitution chooses freedom from offense over freedom of speech?
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 28 2006, 05:13 PM)
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 02:44 PM)
Why is location and time of such protests relevant?
Protests tend to target either time-specific events (speeches, funerals, parades, public appearances by various officials) or specific locations (clinics, churches, factories, power plants). To remove the location and time from such protests is to render them meaningless. It takes the "freedom" out of "freedom of speech".
Well you kind of took that out of context. Regarding the funeral protestors, why is it relevant that they protest near the funeral or at the same time? Other than being annoying, what is the point?
They can demonstrate whenever they want, wherever they want, other than being extra-annoying, why does it matter to us, as a nation?
Move them a mile away...and? Make them protest an hour after....and?
If they have legitimate reasons for protesting at that site, then so be it. They can complain.
It's like all of the Nazi marches. They have to put up baricades before they let them march. Freedom of speech doesn't give you carte blanche, it just prevents you from being silenced.
QUOTE(Doclotus @ May 25 2006, 01:33 PM)
1. Is Congress violating the first amendment by crafting a law that appears to restrict free speech? Why or why not?
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?[/b]
2. Given the political nature of the protests at the funerals, does it merit higher scrutiny for First Amendment protection?
3. Should the Federal Government be allowed to restrict speech on Federal property during events paid for with tax dollars? Why or Why not?[/b]
1.) While I think it is appalling at what is going on at some of these funerals, I am no one to stop them from allowing themselves the right to speak their minds and do what they believe right. Free speech is free speech in any forum. Whether it takes place at the dinner table or in front of the nation at large, we have rights to speak our minds without fear of danger or action unless those words shall inspire actions disagreeable to the public.
2.) I could care less. It is up to the person to choose what they want to say and the law is indifferent to a topic concerning politics or Barney the dinosaur.
3.) No, they should not be able to change the law to suit their needs. There are checks and balances against that. If I provide even a fraction of a penny to the ceremony, I except my right to speak my thoughts about it where and when I want to.
QUOTE(Lesly @ May 28 2006, 03:56 PM)
Do funeral personnel go to work every day wearing bullet-proof vests? Do they wear latex gloves and masks when they open the mail to make sure the contents don’t contain proof of Christian tolerance? Have survivors related to the dead soldiers had their pictures catalogued online, their personal information, such as medical information, posted as well?
Has someone at the funeral been assaulted by WBC? Has someone been denied access to services by WBC?
Has someone been blown to pieces at one of these ceremonies, or has someone related to the dead solider or funeral director witnessed a family member being gunned down by a high powered rifle in their own home?
No?
Ask Phelps to adopt the inciting rhetoric and forceful tactics of his pro-life contemporaries. If he accepts your comparison won’t look like apples and oranges.
Has someone at the funeral been assaulted by WBC? Has someone been denied access to services by WBC?
Has someone been blown to pieces at one of these ceremonies, or has someone related to the dead solider or funeral director witnessed a family member being gunned down by a high powered rifle in their own home?
No?
Ask Phelps to adopt the inciting rhetoric and forceful tactics of his pro-life contemporaries. If he accepts your comparison won’t look like apples and oranges.
That's really not relevant to the situation at hand. Most of the actions implied by your post already carry criminal penalties, that's not the point of buffer zones. The ACLU supported 'floating buffer zones' around abortion clinics to allow the right to obtain medical counseling and treatment in an unobstructed manner.
As stated in it's Amicus Brief in Hill v. Colorado, the ACLU argues that constitutional rights can quickly become meaningless if they cannot be exercised without running a gauntlet of violence, intimidation and harassment. The same can be said in reverse in the case of protesting funerals. Constitutional rights can be rendered meaningless if they create a gauntlet of intimidation and harassment for others.
I'm not leaning towards legislation to solve this, per se, but it should certainly be explored, as groups such as the Patriot Riders will not always be present.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ May 28 2006, 06:23 PM)
my right to speak my thoughts about it where and when I want to.
Who said you had that right?
Let's say you wanted to speak in the oval office, do you have that right?
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 06:55 PM)
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 28 2006, 05:13 PM)
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 02:44 PM)
Why is location and time of such protests relevant?
Protests tend to target either time-specific events (speeches, funerals, parades, public appearances by various officials) or specific locations (clinics, churches, factories, power plants). To remove the location and time from such protests is to render them meaningless. It takes the "freedom" out of "freedom of speech".
Well you kind of took that out of context.
Well, no I didn't. I specifically included funerals and churches as they are salient to the protests in question.
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 06:55 PM)
Regarding the funeral protestors, why is it relevant that they protest near the funeral or at the same time? Other than being annoying, what is the point?
The point is to draw attention to their beliefs. It is the belief of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church that God is punishing American soldiers for defending a Godless country "turned over to fags". They believe that our soldiers are dying "in shame, not honor - for a fag nation cursed by God." Their protests, therefore, specifically target those being memorialized for having given their lives for what they believe is, literally, a God-forsaken cause.
Of course such protests are "extra-annoying" - that's part of their point. Without being annoying, Phelps and Co. would not be getting the publicity they crave.
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 06:55 PM)
Move them a mile away...and? Make them protest an hour after....and?
And you defeat the purpose of their protest, which is to publicize their views. They specifically wish to reach those who have lost loved ones for what they feel is an immoral cause: "If you supported us and helped drive homosexuality out of what was once God's country, your son or daughter might be alive today." What you are suggesting is similar to arguing that striking workers picketing a factory should picket anywhere but at the factory - and certainly not when scabs might be trying to enter or leave. You are suggesting that the protest be removed from its context.
One may disagree - strenuously - with the beliefs and tactics of Phelps, but to their way of thinking, they do have legitimate reasons for protesting at military funerals. If we criminalize homosexuality and exterminate gays and lesbians, they believe, God's grace will return to the United States and our armed forces will stop being killed.
Most rational people believe they are wrong - dangerously wrong - and quite possibly deranged. But that does not allow us to abridge their rights. So long as their protests are peaceful and do not violate anyone else's statutory rights, they are (or were) protected by the Constitution.
Political and religious rants need to be in venues other than cemeteries where mourners take time specifically to grieve and observe the passing of someone important to them.
While I deplore so-called "free speech zones" during political gatherings, I believe that basic human decency constrains us to let people, whoever they are, bury their dead in peace.
It would be wonderful but impractical to elevate the right to speak up, no matter how offensive the speech and no matter the venue. I especially would love to shout challenges to the President or Vice President when they're not telling the truth in their carefully scripted P.R. rallies, especially those with troops sitting behind them instructed to be silent when they disagree and clap when the Commander-In-Chief is talking.
American soldiers for the most part are citizens, yet they relinquished their right to unrestricted free speech when they joined the military. While we as civilians do not relinquish that right, it is just plain decent to not make funerals into areas of conflict regardless of what we might want to say.
If we could be unceremoniously kicked out of a retail business, e.g., Wal-Mart, because our speech was considered offensive by management, why should Fred Phelps and his freak sideshow expect any more consideration in a cemetery, especially when what they say constitutes "fighting words"?
And if the law is extended to any group and uniformly enforced to apply to all who quite clearly pose a menace to the mourners, why would it be wrong?
While I deplore so-called "free speech zones" during political gatherings, I believe that basic human decency constrains us to let people, whoever they are, bury their dead in peace.
It would be wonderful but impractical to elevate the right to speak up, no matter how offensive the speech and no matter the venue. I especially would love to shout challenges to the President or Vice President when they're not telling the truth in their carefully scripted P.R. rallies, especially those with troops sitting behind them instructed to be silent when they disagree and clap when the Commander-In-Chief is talking.
American soldiers for the most part are citizens, yet they relinquished their right to unrestricted free speech when they joined the military. While we as civilians do not relinquish that right, it is just plain decent to not make funerals into areas of conflict regardless of what we might want to say.
If we could be unceremoniously kicked out of a retail business, e.g., Wal-Mart, because our speech was considered offensive by management, why should Fred Phelps and his freak sideshow expect any more consideration in a cemetery, especially when what they say constitutes "fighting words"?
And if the law is extended to any group and uniformly enforced to apply to all who quite clearly pose a menace to the mourners, why would it be wrong?
Redceder= well, there are some contraints on where you can protest- for instance- you can not tresspass on private property- you can protest on the sidewalk of on the public thoroughfare outside a house- but you can't do it on thier lawn. Same way with the funeral - you can't walk on the grounds- but can on the public property surrounding it- which is constitutional and fair.
I am kind of suprised at you Redceder and your take on the argument of limiting freedom of speech location- this is a basic tenent of the founding fathers. I am sure they would have abhored the message- but the idea that the protesters can be forced away from and off public property is literaly what the founding fathers fought against- boston tea party style!
As long as it is
1) Not violent or personally threatening, or, forcing someone to "run a gauntlet " (and only in the case of a private citizen, not the public person- I am all for a guantlet for folks who make themselves public figures)
2) Terrorist threats (we will kill you once we get you alone)
3) ON public property
then, well, it has to be allowed. It is the most basic and unalieanable right we have.
I am kind of suprised at you Redceder and your take on the argument of limiting freedom of speech location- this is a basic tenent of the founding fathers. I am sure they would have abhored the message- but the idea that the protesters can be forced away from and off public property is literaly what the founding fathers fought against- boston tea party style!
As long as it is
1) Not violent or personally threatening, or, forcing someone to "run a gauntlet " (and only in the case of a private citizen, not the public person- I am all for a guantlet for folks who make themselves public figures)
2) Terrorist threats (we will kill you once we get you alone)
3) ON public property
then, well, it has to be allowed. It is the most basic and unalieanable right we have.
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 28 2006, 09:49 PM)
The point is to draw attention to their beliefs.
Where in the constitution does it state this? That you have the freedom to assemble and protest.....in any area that gets national press?
I don't think they "have a right" to be where they "draw more attention". That's nonsense. If no one gives a rats butt about their cause, then that's THEIR PROBLEM. If they can't assemble and protest elsewhere without getting ANY interest, then maybe no one really cares!
I agree they have a right to protest/assemble on public property, but within reason. At some point it has to be considered simply harrassment.
Like I said, they can always petition to protest and get central square whenever it's available. Then they can have center stage and voice their opinion....and no one will show up. Harrassing people is not a "freedom", IMHO.
Well, yes, harrasing poeple, as long as certain rules are followed, is a right, and a freedom . Harrasing is how you make your displeasure known. it is how wrongs are righted, and how our country was formed, and why our founding fathers did what they did.
I am not trying to demean or belittle here dude- but do you get freedom? Freedom IS the right to be objectionable, without being violent or physically threatening someone. You are being real inconsistant with your beliefs. You are against, say drug laws, which, really, their is no real direct goverment constitutional amendment saying "You can do drugs", whereas, the freedom os speech is directly talked about, and, on top of that, expounded on in later letters by the founding fathers as well.
One of the great fallacies of the christian right is how freedom principles were bible based, when, in fact, most were classic philosopher based- like Voltaire- "I do not agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it"
Speech does not just mean the right to talk, in a way, it is a right to make others feel uncomfortable with your ideas, to force change, to make wrongs right through vociferous condemnation of a bad or good thing.
I think phelps are scumbags that deserve violence to thier persons- but I am more concerned about possible freedoms eroded by limiting any verbal or public place protests by the phelps.
Many laws enacted against objectional behavior are used against political foes later!
I am not trying to demean or belittle here dude- but do you get freedom? Freedom IS the right to be objectionable, without being violent or physically threatening someone. You are being real inconsistant with your beliefs. You are against, say drug laws, which, really, their is no real direct goverment constitutional amendment saying "You can do drugs", whereas, the freedom os speech is directly talked about, and, on top of that, expounded on in later letters by the founding fathers as well.
One of the great fallacies of the christian right is how freedom principles were bible based, when, in fact, most were classic philosopher based- like Voltaire- "I do not agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it"
Speech does not just mean the right to talk, in a way, it is a right to make others feel uncomfortable with your ideas, to force change, to make wrongs right through vociferous condemnation of a bad or good thing.
I think phelps are scumbags that deserve violence to thier persons- but I am more concerned about possible freedoms eroded by limiting any verbal or public place protests by the phelps.
Many laws enacted against objectional behavior are used against political foes later!
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 29 2006, 09:21 AM)
Well, yes, harrasing poeple, as long as certain rules are followed, is a right, and a freedom .
....
I am not trying to demean or belittle here dude- but do you get freedom? Freedom IS the right to be objectionable, without being violent or physically threatening someone. You are being real inconsistant with your beliefs. You are against, say drug laws, which, really, their is no real direct goverment constitutional amendment saying "You can do drugs", whereas, the freedom os speech is directly talked about, and, on top of that, expounded on in later letters by the founding fathers as well.
....
I am not trying to demean or belittle here dude- but do you get freedom? Freedom IS the right to be objectionable, without being violent or physically threatening someone. You are being real inconsistant with your beliefs. You are against, say drug laws, which, really, their is no real direct goverment constitutional amendment saying "You can do drugs", whereas, the freedom os speech is directly talked about, and, on top of that, expounded on in later letters by the founding fathers as well.
Actually you seem to be inconsistant. You say there are rules, then you say we can do whatever we want.
I never said they could not protest. That's not the issue, the where and the when are the issue.
Let me give you examples of how protests go beyond just free speech, but don't threaten any one. Let's say you wake up and a group who doesn't like you is sitting in front of your home every day on the public side walk shouting obsenities at you. Let's say you have children and they are using foul language?
According to you this is acceptable free speech.
How about a business has a competitor come out in front of his store with signs that say "this store is horrible, they stole my money, they don't return merchandise", is this acceptable if it causes the store to go under and all the claims are false?
How about I go to a public sidewalk with tons of pedestrians and shout to your mother "you're a whore!" and to every other woman who passes. It's not necessarily threatening, but it's free speech.
I don't think these bible thumpers would be limited in free speech if they had to do their complaining in another venue. The ONLY reason they do it there or want to do it there is to harass people.
There's a reason they call it "peaceful demonstraton".
You can't limit someone's right to free speech, but you can limit the way they do the free speech. You can talk about the Boston Tea Party, but those people would have been arrested today.
The right to free speech isn't the most fundamentally inalienable right we possess in America. The right to be a total jerk is.
Fred Phelps and his church of inbreeds takes jerkiness to new lows. Ain't it great to live in a country like this where normally the urge to walk right up to Crazy Fred and punch him dead in the snot locker would be applauded anywhere but here? Well, it'd be applauded here too, but you'd be subject to arrest for assault.
I regard Mad Fred the same way I regard neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan kreeps: an unfortunate by-product of too much ability to speak out and a lack of anything relevant to say.
Had I been a congressman or senator I would have voted against this restriction. The bad taste and disgusting behavior of a Fred Phelps is not worth changing our laws just to muzzle his little group of idiots.
Everybody's in favor of free speech until it's speech we just can't stomach. Then we want to be protected from it. Fred Phelps and his ilk are fanatics and giving them the attention they want only makes them feel empowered. Just as they changed their odious tactics in demonstrating against homosexuals and celebrities that passed away, eventually they would have changed their tactics with demonstrating against the war dead of Iraq.
Today is Memorial Day. Wonder what Fred was doing today?
If Bush had really wanted to silence Phelps, he could have started bringing the troops home from Iraq and stop creating dead soldiers in the first place.
Fred Phelps and his church of inbreeds takes jerkiness to new lows. Ain't it great to live in a country like this where normally the urge to walk right up to Crazy Fred and punch him dead in the snot locker would be applauded anywhere but here? Well, it'd be applauded here too, but you'd be subject to arrest for assault.
I regard Mad Fred the same way I regard neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan kreeps: an unfortunate by-product of too much ability to speak out and a lack of anything relevant to say.
Had I been a congressman or senator I would have voted against this restriction. The bad taste and disgusting behavior of a Fred Phelps is not worth changing our laws just to muzzle his little group of idiots.
Everybody's in favor of free speech until it's speech we just can't stomach. Then we want to be protected from it. Fred Phelps and his ilk are fanatics and giving them the attention they want only makes them feel empowered. Just as they changed their odious tactics in demonstrating against homosexuals and celebrities that passed away, eventually they would have changed their tactics with demonstrating against the war dead of Iraq.
Today is Memorial Day. Wonder what Fred was doing today?
If Bush had really wanted to silence Phelps, he could have started bringing the troops home from Iraq and stop creating dead soldiers in the first place.
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 28 2006, 06:55 PM)
Regarding the funeral protestors, why is it relevant that they protest near the funeral or at the same time? Other than being annoying, what is the point?
QUOTE(Wertz @ May 28 2006, 09:49 PM)
The point is to draw attention to their beliefs.
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 29 2006, 09:00 AM)
Where in the constitution does it state this? That you have the freedom to assemble and protest.....in any area that gets national press?
If you actually follow the discussion, you will note that the question I was answering related to why it was "relevant" to protest near a funeral, not in what way drawing attention might be constitutional. I answered the question you asked, period. That question and your subsequent "...and?" couplet seemed to beg a description of the nature and purpose of protests. I provided one.
Your follow-up question here is a non sequitur raising a red herring - and in the form of a logically fallacious complex question at that. To humor you, I'll merely point out that the First Amendment doesn't qualify free speech in any way. It doesn't matter whether it is being used to draw attention, express an opinion, make a request, or even use someone else's innocent response to an unrelated question as a springboard for going off about publicity-seeking and harassment.
You might not appreciate someone using free speech to gain the attention of the national press. I might not appreciate feeling compelled to address issues I never raised in a political debate. Too bad for both of us. They're both protected by the Bill of Rights, however annoying.
QUOTE(RedCedar @ May 29 2006, 01:54 PM)
Let me give you examples of how protests go beyond just free speech, but don't threaten any one.
Let's say you wake up and a group who doesn't like you is sitting in front of your home every day on the public side walk shouting obsenities at you. Let's say you have children and they are using foul language?
Let's say you wake up and a group who doesn't like you is sitting in front of your home every day on the public side walk shouting obsenities at you. Let's say you have children and they are using foul language?
Well, actually, if they are shouting obscenities, they are liable to be arrested for disorderly conduct, or being a public nuisance.
But, assuming no obscene posters or comments, and assuming they do not try to physically interfere with anyone's coming or going to my house, yes, absolutely they can do what they are doing. I may not like it, but it's perfectly legal. Ask just about any politician in the country. They've all been picketed at work or at home, at one time or another. Better yet, ask any planned parenthood office, or abortion clinic. This has been going on for years, and has found to be, within certain parameters, legal and constitutional.
QUOTE
How about a business has a competitor come out in front of his store with signs that say "this store is horrible, they stole my money, they don't return merchandise", is this acceptable if it causes the store to go under and all the claims are false?
Well, I would think, in this day and age, that a group protesting at a store like this, would receive some sort of media coverage. Let's say it's my store being picketed, shall we? And let's say that I can prove it's a competitor that's doing the "protesting" because he's using employees to stand outside my store.
When the reporters ask why they are protesting, they are going to get that side of the story. When the reporters then ask me for my side of the story, I'm going to not only be able to refute the charges, but I can show it's my competitor at fault (my turn for free speech, remember?).
I don't think it's my store that's going to be going out of business, but his. Yes he has freedom of speech. But so do I, and I can certainly defend my position better in these circumstances.
QUOTE
How about I go to a public sidewalk with tons of pedestrians and shout to your mother "you're a whore!" and to every other woman who passes. It's not necessarily threatening, but it's free speech.
But again, shouting an obscenity, whether threatening or not at people, is going to be considered a public nuisance, or disorderly conduct. Those are arrestable offenses, regardless of the speech.
QUOTE
I don't think these bible thumpers would be limited in free speech if they had to do their complaining in another venue. The ONLY reason they do it there or want to do it there is to harass people.
Of course they are. But they are not using foul language, they are not shouting obscenities. They are not encroaching on private property.
People do not have the right not to be offended by someone elses speech. The fact that the Bikers or the Angels is helping block out this idiot group's message is admirable. Creating "free speech zones", enforceable by the government is not the way to go. As we've seen more than once before, if you give the government an inch, they'll end up taking the whole damned country.
QUOTE(NiteGuy @ Jun 2 2006, 10:06 PM)
QUOTE
I don't think these bible thumpers would be limited in free speech if they had to do their complaining in another venue. The ONLY reason they do it there or want to do it there is to harass people.
Of course they are. But they are not using foul language, they are not shouting obscenities. They are not encroaching on private property.
Well I guess that's your opinion. If someone's going to a funeral and there's a person yelling in my face that my son died because of homosexuals (or "faggots" as used by this group), I would consider that foul language and offensive.
Hey face facts, when the Nazis wanted to march down a jewish street in Illinois they didn't let them do it whenever they wanted. Unless it REALLY is a threat to free speech and NOT to simply being in a place where you can harass people, then the PEOPLE have a right to dictate how that minority group operates.
Similar in vitriol to Phelps were the words of Ann Coulter to Matt Lauer and Tucker Carlson concerning 9/11 widows Tuesday 6-6-06.
I agree that both have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the remarks of either were in good taste.
Here are links to Coulter talking to First Matt Lauer and then Tucker Carlson (separate interviews).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191645/
I think the root of displays like that of either Phelps or Coulter, is an overwhelming desire for attention.
The worst punishment we could inflict on either is to ignore them, denying them the spotlight they so crave.
Again, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment guaranteeing anyone a podium, a microphone (golden or otherwise) or an audience.
I agree that both have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the remarks of either were in good taste.
Here are links to Coulter talking to First Matt Lauer and then Tucker Carlson (separate interviews).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191645/
I think the root of displays like that of either Phelps or Coulter, is an overwhelming desire for attention.
The worst punishment we could inflict on either is to ignore them, denying them the spotlight they so crave.
Again, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment guaranteeing anyone a podium, a microphone (golden or otherwise) or an audience.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 7 2006, 09:32 PM)
Similar in vitriol to Phelps were the words of Ann Coulter to Matt Lauer and Tucker Carlson concerning 9/11 widows Tuesday 6-6-06.
I agree that both have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the remarks of either were in good taste.
Here are links to Coulter talking to First Matt Lauer and then Tucker Carlson (separate interviews).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191645/
I think the root of displays like that of either Phelps or Coulter, is an overwhelming desire for attention.
The worst punishment we could inflict on either is to ignore them, denying them the spotlight they so crave.
Again, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment guaranteeing anyone a podium, a microphone (golden or otherwise) or an audience.
I agree that both have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the remarks of either were in good taste.
Here are links to Coulter talking to First Matt Lauer and then Tucker Carlson (separate interviews).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191645/
I think the root of displays like that of either Phelps or Coulter, is an overwhelming desire for attention.
The worst punishment we could inflict on either is to ignore them, denying them the spotlight they so crave.
Again, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment guaranteeing anyone a podium, a microphone (golden or otherwise) or an audience.
There is a difference here BoF. Coulter did not goto the funeral of those who died on 9/11 and make these remarks or put them on poster boards and stand by the funeral procession.
If Phelps were making his statements in like Coulter in book form or in interviews it would be different. As well as if Coulter were going to the funerals of those she is ridiculing and doing it there I would have just as much beef with her as I do Phelps.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jun 7 2006, 10:36 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 7 2006, 09:32 PM)
Similar in vitriol to Phelps were the words of Ann Coulter to Matt Lauer and Tucker Carlson concerning 9/11 widows Tuesday 6-6-06.
I agree that both have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the remarks of either were in good taste.
Here are links to Coulter talking to First Matt Lauer and then Tucker Carlson (separate interviews).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191645/
I think the root of displays like that of either Phelps or Coulter, is an overwhelming desire for attention.
The worst punishment we could inflict on either is to ignore them, denying them the spotlight they so crave.
Again, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment guaranteeing anyone a podium, a microphone (golden or otherwise) or an audience.
I agree that both have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the remarks of either were in good taste.
Here are links to Coulter talking to First Matt Lauer and then Tucker Carlson (separate interviews).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191645/
I think the root of displays like that of either Phelps or Coulter, is an overwhelming desire for attention.
The worst punishment we could inflict on either is to ignore them, denying them the spotlight they so crave.
Again, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment guaranteeing anyone a podium, a microphone (golden or otherwise) or an audience.
There is a difference here BoF. Coulter did not goto the funeral of those who died on 9/11 and make these remarks or put them on poster boards and stand by the funeral procession.
If Phelps were making his statements in like Coulter in book form or in interviews it would be different. As well as if Coulter were going to the funerals of those she is ridiculing and doing it there I would have just as much beef with her as I do Phelps.
There is a difference Sleeper, but they are both covered by freedom of speech and both are equally worthy of just ignoring.
I don't think the constitution distinguishes between written and spoken speech olr calls for outlawing something Sleeper and/or BoF don't particularly like.
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 7 2006, 10:47 PM)
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Jun 7 2006, 10:36 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Jun 7 2006, 09:32 PM)
Similar in vitriol to Phelps were the words of Ann Coulter to Matt Lauer and Tucker Carlson concerning 9/11 widows Tuesday 6-6-06.
I agree that both have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the remarks of either were in good taste.
Here are links to Coulter talking to First Matt Lauer and then Tucker Carlson (separate interviews).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191645/
I think the root of displays like that of either Phelps or Coulter, is an overwhelming desire for attention.
The worst punishment we could inflict on either is to ignore them, denying them the spotlight they so crave.
Again, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment guaranteeing anyone a podium, a microphone (golden or otherwise) or an audience.
I agree that both have freedom of speech, but that does not mean the remarks of either were in good taste.
Here are links to Coulter talking to First Matt Lauer and then Tucker Carlson (separate interviews).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191645/
I think the root of displays like that of either Phelps or Coulter, is an overwhelming desire for attention.
The worst punishment we could inflict on either is to ignore them, denying them the spotlight they so crave.
Again, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment guaranteeing anyone a podium, a microphone (golden or otherwise) or an audience.
There is a difference here BoF. Coulter did not goto the funeral of those who died on 9/11 and make these remarks or put them on poster boards and stand by the funeral procession.
If Phelps were making his statements in like Coulter in book form or in interviews it would be different. As well as if Coulter were going to the funerals of those she is ridiculing and doing it there I would have just as much beef with her as I do Phelps.
There is a difference Sleeper, but they are both covered by freedom of speech and both are equally worthy of just ignoring.
I don't think the constitution distinguishes between written and spoken speech or calls for outlawing something Sleeper and/or BoF don't particularly like.
There are no parallels to what Phelps and Coulter are doing. Yes they are both spewing vitriol. But Phelps is doing to at a funeral service. Like DTOM said earlier in this thread..
QUOTE(Donttreadonme)
If a family cannot grieve and mourn a fallen loved one for a few moments in relative peace, in the name of preserving freedom of speech, then are we as a society even still deserving of that right?
Have we really fallen this low as a society. What happened to human decency?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.