congress bans funeral protest

By now everyone has heard of that church group that goes to funerals of military people and protests, saying their death is God's Wrath because of all the gays in this country. Whatever. Whether or not we agree with the war, it is clearly wrong. We all know they're nuts. We all know they're evil.

But I gotta think this is a violation of the First Amendment. I realize the government doesnt care much about the Constitution these days, but what say you?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/....ap/index.html

Gotta love the doublespeak in the name of the law - "Respect For America's Fallen Heroes Act".

Personally I think the mourners should just go and beat the shit out of these people...

That's ridiculous. Is it classless to protest at a funeral? Of course. However, there are a lot of other ways to be classless that aren't getting banned, thanks to the First Amendment. How can this be illegal and Ellen still has a fucking television show?

I just dont like how people are, instead of protesting what they do in whatever ways (protesting their church, etc.) they just run to the government to make a new law. It just seems sadly indicative of this day and age.

Agreed. It's the next step of the frivolous law suits. "I didn't get my way, so somebody better pay me or make a law to protect me."

This church exists for the sole purpose of getting people to beat them up at protests. They've got an army of lawyers devoted to getting money from lawsuits over that very thing. Imagine if Scientology went out of their way to try to get people to insult them before hitting them with lawsuits and you've almost got it.

And the first amendment has limits. It always has. Although I'm not sure how I feel about this particular limit... it seems like an overreaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

This church exists for the sole purpose of getting people to beat them up at protests. They've got an army of lawyers devoted to getting money from lawsuits over that very thing. Imagine if Scientology went out of their way to try to get people to insult them before hitting them with lawsuits and you've almost got it.

---

Wasn't aware of that.

Quote:

---

And the first amendment has limits. It always has. Although I'm not sure how I feel about this particular limit... it seems like an overreaction.

---

I know it has limits, I'm just not sure this is one of those.

Yeah, it does go little too far but have to blame the mourners for not meeting the protesters with baseball bats to their head.

I'm okay with it, for now.

Though this does worry me. What else can the gov. ban?

I have no problem with shutting these cunts up, but it sets a scary precedence. If no one complains about this, they will throw it in your face when they ban a more socially favorable form of protest.

The problem nowadays is that anyone who protests is labeled as loon and should be ignored. Like the people who protested at the RNC in 2004 - not only were they corralled up like cattle into "free speech zones" but the media generally ignored them.

Protest is mostly dead in this country.

There's really no other way to get these people to stop, though. As was said, you lay a finger on them and you're charged as an aggressor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The problem nowadays is that anyone who protests is labeled as loon and should be ignored. Like the people who protested at the RNC in 2004 - not only were they corralled up like cattle into "free speech zones" but the media generally ignored them.

Protest is mostly dead in this country.

---

well the biggest reason for the loon perception is that a lot of recent protests have been about just that. im sure just as many people thought the civil rights protesters were "loons" too, the point is not to worry about how accepted your message is today, but how much you state your case in a clear, coherent way and win over people by their inability to counter what you are saying. all protesters are loons, but some loons eventually sway opinions and are lionized in hindsight.

I have no problem with it at all. Free speech only goes so far. The people at the funeral have a right to a peaceful and semi private ceremony, IMO.

Just like you can't scream "FIRE!" in a movie theatre and claim free speech, you shouldn't be able to go to a funeral and just cause shit. And I guess now it's a law, good.

I don't think this is an example of people running to the government to protect them. This seems like a rare case of the government actually doing something useful. I'm glad it was decided that jackholes don't have a right under the Constitution to do this.

I wonder how it is in Louisiana, with their different law system? I bet I could go beat the living shit out of these protestors and only get a tiny fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arjue

I have no problem with shutting these cunts up, but it sets a scary precedence. If no one complains about this, they will throw it in your face when they ban a more socially favorable form of protest.

---

who knows, they may even pass a law majorly infringing on law abiding people's rights based on an emotional reaction to a single attention grabbing incident, nah could never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JefmcC

Just like you can't scream "FIRE!" in a movie theatre and claim free speech, you shouldn't be able to go to a funeral and just cause shit. And I guess now it's a law, good.

---

Those are two different things, though.

Quote:

---

I'm glad it was decided that jackholes don't have a right under the Constitution to do this.

---

LOL, Congress never even thinks about that. They pass whatever shit they want and then the Courts decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

well the biggest reason for the loon perception is that a lot of recent protests have been about just that. im sure just as many people thought the civil rights protesters were "loons" too, the point is not to worry about how accepted your message is today, but how much you state your case in a clear, coherent way and win over people by their inability to counter what you are saying. all protesters are loons, but some loons eventually sway opinions and are lionized in hindsight.

---

That's true, I know some of the 3rd parties of the late 1800s, like the Populists, were mostly mocked but by the 1930s most of their platform was policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Those are two different things, though.



LOL, Congress never even thinks about that. They pass whatever shit they want and then the Courts decide.

---

Yeah they are different circumstances, but both are examples of the limitations of the First Amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JefmcC

Yeah they are different circumstances, but both are examples of the limitations of the First Amendment.

---

Nice circular reasoning there buddy.

Congress should have just passed a law allowing the total ass beating of these protesters. No repercussions or law suits allowed.

I really don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, it's good that the protestors can't go and piss on the funeral of someone who was sadly forced to die for this country's stupid agendas. But in the grand scheme of things, the fact that such a law could be passed is kinda scary. I mean, couldn't the cops just arrest these people for, say, trespassing and avoid the whole ugliness of passing a law that might end up being the gateway for greater liberties being trampled underfoot in the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The problem nowadays is that anyone who protests is labeled as loon and should be ignored.

---

The Dixie Chicks were on Stern this morning, reminding me of when they spoke out against Bush early into the Iraq war and almost destroyed their careers as a result. Now, I couldn't give a shit about The Dixie Chicks, but what happened to them for merely speaking their minds in a country where we supposedly have the same "freedoms" that we're trying to "deliver" to Iraq is unsettling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The problem nowadays is that anyone who protests is labeled as loon and should be ignored. Like the people who protested at the RNC in 2004 - not only were they corralled up like cattle into "free speech zones" but the media generally ignored them.

Protest is mostly dead in this country.

---

How could say that when just a few weeks ago, huge protests brought illegal immigration to everyone's mind.

The reason so many protests are ignored is becuase they are proclaiming stuff i have already decided on. I don't care about a anti-war/bush protest becuase i have already made my feelings on that subject. They come off a know-it-all smarks or (in this case) assholes.

It doesn't help that the same people are always protesting. The young and often uneducated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

I mean, couldn't the cops just arrest these people for, say, trespassing and avoid the whole ugliness of passing a law that might end up being the gateway for greater liberties being trampled underfoot in the future?

---

This probably wouldnt have been doable if these crazies had an army full of lawyers behind them waiting to pounce (which I didnt know btw).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

I mean, couldn't the cops just arrest these people for, say, trespassing and avoid the whole ugliness of passing a law that might end up being the gateway for greater liberties being trampled underfoot in the future?

---

Well, I dont think so. It covers national (public) cemetaries. Disturbing the peace, maybe? I dont know, but if it could be done I dont know why it hasnt been.

Quote:

---

The Dixie Chicks were on Stern this morning, reminding me of when they spoke out against Bush early into the Iraq war and almost destroyed their careers as a result. Now, I couldn't give a shit about The Dixie Chicks, but what happened to them for merely speaking their minds in a country where we supposedly have the same "freedoms" that we're trying to "deliver" to Iraq is unsettling.

---

The problem with the Dixie Chicks thing was that it was fanned by ClearChannel and other Bush friends. It wasn't organic or authentic in the slightest, it was the Five Minute Hate or whatever they called it in 1984 brought to life.

Quote:

---

The young and often uneducated.

---

Like yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The Dixie Chicks thing was fanned by ClearChannel and other Bush friends.

---

Yup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Like yourself.

---

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7...t%20riders.jpg
No, he means like these fat bikers.
See, it's hip for young people to look so old.
EDIT: I should've read the article first. The bikers were a protest of the protest . Awesome.
Only problem being, judging by their name, they're all probably crazy Belties, though.

It's unfortunate, but I think people have a right to be so retarded without harming people in America. I call bullshit here, though not as much if the law wasn't worded to specifically to benefit military funerals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Nice circular reasoning there buddy.

---

LOL, I'm not saying one correlates to the other. Just pointing out that there are examples where limiting free speech benefits everyone. But you're a smart guy and you already know that, so it's for everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JefmcC

LOL, I'm not saying one correlates to the other. Just pointing out that there are examples where limiting free speech benefits everyone. But you're a smart guy and you already know that, so it's for everyone else.

---

Keep in mind the whole point of this thread was to ask, "is this form of protest protected under the Constitution". I am making it clear that right now I think it is. That's not to say I like what they do, or support it. Your crowded theater example is one of possible danger to people's lives - this is not even close to that.

The Bill of Rights is a pain in the butt. The first amendment lets people say what they want and protest and print the government's lies without retribution or prison (ahem). Thanks to that pesky fourth amendment the government can't spy on us (ahem). That annoying 5th and 6th amendment means that child molestors, rapists, terrorists, murderers must be treated fairly and given the opportunity to defend themselves. The jerks that wrote the 8th amendment didnt want us to torture people (ahem). What a bunch of assholes! Clearly getting rid of these provisions will benefit everyone.

Except that's not how it works. You know that.

Limiting free speech benefits no one. If you can't handle what other people are saying, perhaps you're too coddled. If you keep letting the government do little stuff like this, eventually you will have nothing left to say because some person somewhere is probably offended by the word, "Hello."

Yeah, it sucks that these whackos were protesting at the funerals but you know what? It should be their right. Should we silence the KKK just because we don't like what they're saying? "If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." So much for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Like yourself.

---

Everyone has to start somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

Yeah, it sucks that these whackos were protesting at the funerals but you know what? It should be their right. Should we silence the KKK just because we don't like what they're saying? "If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." So much for that.

---

I'd say, "OMFG WE NEED TO LEARN NEWSPEAK!" but I haven't fininshed 1984 yet.

DOUBLE PLUS GOOD! UNGOOD!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

Limiting free speech benefits no one. If you can't handle what other people are saying, perhaps you're too coddled. If you keep letting the government do little stuff like this, eventually you will have nothing left to say because some person somewhere is probably offended by the word, "Hello."

Yeah, it sucks that these whackos were protesting at the funerals but you know what? It should be their right. Should we silence the KKK just because we don't like what they're saying?

---

Yeah, man but there is a time and place for everything and doing this at the funerals for these troops is lower than low. These protesters should be doing this on Capitol Hill or in front of the White House or something.That would be the proper staging ground for a protest. Noone wants people gathered around their son's or daughters funeral with signs saying "THANK GOD HE'S DEAD - GOOD RIDDANCE," etc. The military was one part of that person's life, doing that is a disgrace to the other part of it that those assholes dont know about.

And if the KKK showed up at every black person's funeral with "THANK GOD THIS NIGGER IS DEAD - YEEHAW" signs there sure as shit would be an outcry...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

And if the KKK showed up at every black person's funeral with "THANK GOD THIS NIGGER IS DEAD - YEEHAW" signs there sure as shit would be an outcry...

---

If not for beer, hookers, pick-up trucks, and Larry the Cable Guy, this would probably be far more common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

stuff

---

Once again nobody is saying they are doing something good or worthwhile. They are scum. People are saying they have the right to do what they do. And if they have that right, the gubment can't take it away.

The ACLU still gets shit on today by the Bush Cult because they supported the right for the KKK to stage reprehensible protests decades ago in Illinois.

And by now everytime the KKK does something in public, people protest them, and usually there are far more of those than KKK - like 20 to 1. If people are too lazy to do that to these guys, then so be it, but that doesn't mean the government should swoop down and make a new law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Once again nobody is saying they are doing something good or worthwhile. They are scum. People are saying they have the right to do what they do. And if they have that right, the gubment can't take it away.

---

Yeah, but back when our Amendments were hammered out certain things were a little more sacred than what they are today. Funerals being one of those things. It would have been unthinkable to do this 200+ years ago as the people in that time respected the dead and their families during the funerary process.

This and like Seth mentioned, this cult has lawyers on the ready for when these families just break,cant take anymore, and fight back.Making money off the death of our troops and their families like this is skeezy as fuck.


I would love to see the military families go to these protesters' familes funerals and wave signs of their own and see how they like it.

Aren't these funerals conducted on private property? Don't the churches and cemetaries have the right to keep the protestors off their property? Perhaps if you wanted to make a law, you could just create a "buffer zone" around these private areas that increases the no-protest range. Maybe. But the absolutely have the right to protest.

Oh no, not a strict constructionist argument! I see that a lot when people try to justify the NSA illegal wiretapping.

It's anecdotal and irrelevant if this or that wasn't around 200 years ago. The Bill of Rights covers a lot of things that didn't exist 200 years ago. It's a different world than it was in 1791.

Quote:

---

I would love to see the military families go to these protesters' familes funerals and wave signs of their own and see how they like it.

---

I hope they do that.

Quote:

---

Aren't these funerals conducted on private property?

---

No. National cemetaries = public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

It's anecdotal and irrelevant if this or that wasn't around 200 years ago. The Bill of Rights covers a lot of things that didn't exist 200 years ago. It's a different world than it was in 1791.

---

Exactly. And it doesnt cover this disgrace, so what does that tell you? I think it's safe to say that their are some things that our founding fathers didnt envision would happen at a later day and age. Which is why it was possible for Congress to pass this law, to correct for anything like this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

Exactly. And it doesnt cover this disgrace, so what does that tell you?

---

This is the same stupidity that Jefmcc tried, "its not protected, so thats that!".

Except you have no reason why it doesn't, except its mean and nasty.

Unfortunately that's not a valid reason.

Try again.

Quote:

---

I think it's safe to say that their are some things that our founding fathers didnt envision would happen at a later day and age.

---

They wrote the document under the assumption that things would happen that they couldnt envision at that day and age.

Quote:

---

Which is why it was possible for Congress to pass this law, to correct for anything like this...

---

You have no idea how government works. Congress doesn't decide what is and isn't Constitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Keep in mind the whole point of this thread was to ask, "is this form of protest protected under the Constitution". I am making it clear that right now I think it is. That's not to say I like what they do, or support it. Your crowded theater example is one of possible danger to people's lives - this is not even close to that.

The Bill of Rights is a pain in the butt. The first amendment lets people say what they want and protest and print the government's lies without retribution or prison (ahem). Thanks to that pesky fourth amendment the government can't spy on us (ahem). That annoying 5th and 6th amendment means that child molestors, rapists, terrorists, murderers must be treated fairly and given the opportunity to defend themselves. The jerks that wrote the 8th amendment didnt want us to torture people (ahem). What a bunch of assholes! Clearly getting rid of these provisions will benefit everyone.

Except that's not how it works. You know that.

---

LOL we're on the same page dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

They wrote the document under the assumption that things would happen that they couldnt envision at that day and age.

---

Which is exactly why this

Quote:

---

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version,

---

Quote:

---

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

---

is able to occur.

Guess you are right.

These dildos having the right to protest military funerals is the same as the KKK being allowed to rally. It may suck, but it's part of living in a "free" nation (though perhaps for not much longer with the way things are going).

I do agree with Jetman when he says that these retards should be protesting at the White House or the Capitol, which is where this shit really goes down, and not at the funeral of some nameless cog in the machine.

Just another example of idiots with too much time on their hands who can't be bothered doing something actually important. Like the fools for fight "indecency" on TV and radio when there's far worse things out there to champion against.

I still like the idea of taking a bullhorn to their faces everytime they speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief~Silver

I still like the idea of taking a bullhorn to their faces everytime they speak.

---

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

No. National cemetaries = public.

---

Well. Still, most churches are private property and I'm sure funeral homes are on private property.

Anyway I'm trying to figure out how constitutional this bill is. They're not removing their right to protest, but they're certainly limiting it. It's not TOO limiting though, they can protest during the funeral but 300 feet away, and after that they can walk into the cemetary and protest.

It's the time issue that really bothers me. There are already laws in place restricting places to protest, right? And that makes sense to me.

In the end the lawmakers are party to the desires of the people they represent, and by "the people" I mean the majority, and if the majority of people want this change then I don't see it as threatening or even out of place. I think the time issue is too restrictive, however. That is pushing it.

Um, we're talking about cemetaries.

I understand that. It's irrelevant, but a lot of people do hold funeral services in churches and funeral homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

That's ridiculous. Is it classless to protest at a funeral? Of course. However, there are a lot of other ways to be classless that aren't getting banned, thanks to the First Amendment. How can this be illegal and Ellen still has a fucking television show?

---

I think this is one instance, specific enough, where banning free speech is beneficial. If they want to protest they can do it after the funeral. The law favors those in mourning over those trying to garner attention on the death of one of America's fallen heroes. This isn't banning the word "hello" or outright banning protesting, it's a specific instance where a group of idiots are tarnishing the final rights of someone who died for them. Their families deserve the right to be able to say goodbye in peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

---

If you damage their hearing with a bullhorn they can still charge you for assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

I think this is one instance, specific enough, where banning free speech is beneficial. If they want to protest they can do it after the funeral. The law favors those in mourning over those trying to garner attention on the death of one of America's fallen heroes.

---

Here's the problem though, the First Amendment doesn't "favor" anyone over anyone else. We all get the same rights. I dont know how it is set up in Canada, likely you have a different mindset.

Quote:

---

it's a specific instance where a group of idiots are tarnishing the final rights of someone who died for them

---

These people clearly believe the soldiers are doing an evil country's dirty deeds. They want no part of it and are protesting to change it. They have the right to do both.

Quote:

---

Anyway I'm trying to figure out how constitutional this bill is. They're not removing their right to protest, but they're certainly limiting it. It's not TOO limiting though

---

Yea... here's where I wish I knew more, like how the First Amendment has been defined and where it runs up to a wall and the like. My puny mind can think of imminent threat to safety reasons (crowded movie theater), or concocted lies to do a person harm (slander).

edit: on second thought the timeframe... okay a supporter can say they can protest just not during these times... but isnt that the same as NYC if they said people cant protest the RNC except for certain times, and then say like 9-9 or something ludicrous like that? This is why I didnt go to law school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

edit: on second thought the timeframe... okay a supporter can say they can protest just not during these times... but isnt that the same as NYC if they said people cant protest the RNC except for certain times, and then say like 9-9 or something ludicrous like that? This is why I didnt go to law school.

---

That's why I have a problem with the timeframe. I understand disturbing the peace laws, but throwing out farily arbitrary time constraints seems shady. Keeping the people away from the ceremony is more than enough.

I think this ridiculous law will really test what sort of Supreme Court we have. Whatever personal feelings you may have about these people or what they do, they are protected by the Bill the Rights without QUESTION. You don't get to trample on anyone's unalienable rights for the sake of some else's comfort. If this doesn't get struck down by the Court as unconstitutional then we'll know we cannot count on them to protect us from governmental overreach.

EDIT: And to all you saying "Well it's just these loons in this case" well how hypocritical can you get? The pro-choice lobby have been trying for years now to get similiar legistlation to get crazy right-wing fundamentalists (who have resorted to violence in some cases I might add) away from clinics and have been shut down by the government at every turn. Why do these people get it and the rest don't? It's bias as fuck and STILL unconstituitonal.

I thought this might be of interest to some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by godhatesfags.com

Why do you picket soldiers' funerals?

Here are some axiomatic matters of fact:

These turkeys are not heroes. They are lazy, incompetent idiots looking for jobs because they're not qualified for honest work.

They were raised on a steady diet of fag propaganda in the home, on TV, in church, in school, in mass media - everywhere - the two-pronged lie: 1) It's OK to be gay; and, 2) Anyone saying otherwise, like WBC, is a hatemonger who must be vilified, demonized, marginalized into silence.

Therefore, with full knowledge of what they were doing, they voluntarily joined a fag-infested army to fight for a fag-run country now utterly and finally forsaken by God who Himself is fighting against that country.

They turned America
Over to fags;
They're coming home
In body bags.

America used an IED to bomb Westboro Baptist Church on August 20,1995 - an act of terror aimed at terrorizing us into discontinuing our nationwide Gospel preaching against the homosexual menace.

When America thus became WBC's terrorist, God became America's Terrorist.

Therefore the IED is God's weapon of choice in avenging Westboro Baptist Church by blowing America's kids to smithereens in Iraq. And the carnage has barely begun.

Thus, their funerals are the forum of choice for delivering WBC's message of choice.

---

Link to info on the bombing: http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured...ombed-wbc.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Here's the problem though, the First Amendment doesn't "favor" anyone over anyone else. We all get the same rights. I dont know how it is set up in Canada, likely you have a different mindset.

---

The jist of it is basically the same. I just don't think anybody should be able to ruin someone's funeral at all. It's more of a moral decision, but if my civil rights are violated a little bit, disallowing me to cause a ruckus at someone's funeral, I'm okay with that.

The arguement is that this is a slippery slope, allowing the government to pass laws restricting free speech all willy nilly. Maybe it is, I don't know.

p.s. I'm a communist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

Making money off the death of our troops and their families like this is skeezy as fuck.

---

http://www.libyen-news.de/logo%20halliburton.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltor

I thought this might be of interest to some.

---

Well, that certainly opened my eyes. Damn fags.

I'm a big first amendment guy, and I honestly don't know how I feel about this. I can't feel any sympathy whatsoever for the protestors; I think by rights they should be beaten and assfucked, but the right to protest is a pretty important thing to tamper with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltor

I thought this might be of interest to some.

---

I like how the proprietors of godhatesfags.com object to being labeled as "hatemongers".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

The jist of it is basically the same. I just don't think anybody should be able to ruin someone's funeral at all.

---

I dont either... but they have a right to do it.

And Im not going to support taking away their rights, because then my rights are next.

It's easy to support free speech and all that fun stuff when you agree with what the other guy is saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltor

Link to info on the bombing: http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured...ombed-wbc.html

---

Something about this site makes me not trust their information...

I JUST CAN'T PLACE MY FINGER ON IT...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And Im not going to support taking away their rights, because then my rights are next.

---

Eh, I don't think that's likely to happen, but you're completely justified in your vigilance.
It's better to have a 'buffer zone' protecting your rights, even if it allows for extreme douchery to take place, than it is to have a 'buffer zone' that could possibly infringe upon your rights.

And as far as the time constraints are concerned, it was my impression that they were merely defining when the buffer zone would be enforced, rather than when protest would be allowed. Within one hour before and after the funeral, the protestors are kept at a distance, and any other time, they're free to protest wherever they like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

That's ridiculous. Is it classless to protest at a funeral? Of course. However, there are a lot of other ways to be classless that aren't getting banned, thanks to the First Amendment. How can this be illegal and Ellen still has a fucking television show?

---

I would consider sacrificing the First Amendment just to get Ellen off the air.

And killed.

Anyway, I think the Supreme Court will kick this law in the sack.

The test of weather or not we deserve a free society is defined by these extreme actions. If we crack down and make them "special" they'll have won. But if we just haul them off for disturbing the peace. Good for us. I mean shit, cops do that for legit protests all the time.

If these fuckers get too close, I reccomend bringing a good ol' fashioned double barrell and employing the "They're coming right for us!" clause.

These WBC people are truly scary. Shirley Phelps Roper was on the Ron and Fez show a few months ago, and she is clearly an insane individual, let alone a massive hypocrite.

The simple fact is, they were no longer getting the level of attention they wanted by protesting gay people's funerals, so they moved over to a bigger target, and came up with some insane methodology to justify it to themselves.

If we simply pay no attention to them, and the media stops caring and reporting it, they will stop, or even better, cross over the line into something thats prosecutable (is that a word?)

godhatefags.com is probably the most offensive site I've ever seen.

as a fag (sorta) i don't find it that offensive. I find the people behind it offiensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Personally I think the mourners should just go and beat the shit out of these people...

---

That's what I'd do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

That's what I'd do.

---

Then they sue you since nearly all of Phellps' kids were raised to be laywers, then they use the money to fund more of thier batshit insane preaching.

Banning their protest is unconstitutional because it's not the kind of First Amendment limitation that prevents bodily harm, like screaming shit in a crowded theater or a plane or in any situation where someone can get hurt.

They'll probably challenge this law in court for the right to protest at funerals, and they'll probably win, as they should.

Am I saying they're not being assholes for disturbing a funeral? Of course not.

I'm just saying that they should just be ignored instead of blocked by a stupid law that sets a weird precedent and will only lead to worse laws that build on the concept of banning protests and non-violent gatherings.

Falsely yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater is not a free speech issue- it's an issue of inciting panic. Whoever does that needs to be busted. Protesters at funerals are something different. I'd rather not deal with people picketing a funeral, but the government should butt out on this. Where else are they going to try to ban protests next? Anywhere they feel like it?

The mourners do have the right to a peaceful funeral. However, we don't need police state tactics to enforce it. The protesters should simply refrain out of common manners, not out of fear. $100,000 is way too high of a maximum for the fine- I'd say $500 would be more fair. Protesters should be allowed one last chance to leave the area before being arrested if this law needs enforcing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

they just run to the government to make a new law.

---

I've always hated this line of thinking. It is the big reason I consider myself a conservative if anything. I HATE the idea of using the government as a tool to get your way.

I don't really think that is what the government is for.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Somebody smart said that once. Anyone who agrees with this law should just go ahead and move to China or some shit. The government will be happy to protect you from being offended over there, commie.

If it were a funeral I was running, I'd get a fleet of poofters to fag off to really loud george michael music right infront of them.

I don't see why someone just doesn't sue them for slander.

I'll wait till one of their deaths. Grab everyone they've upset, and protest with signs saying like "God says LOL OWNED" or "Musta been a fag".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

Limiting free speech benefits no one. If you can't handle what other people are saying, perhaps you're too coddled.

---

The thing is, these are goddamn funerals. I know if I had a son who was killed and people showed up at the funeral stirring shit up while I'm trying to pay respects, a protestor would end up with a tree limb through his skull.

I'm all for free speech. And yes, the current government scares the hell out of me with the shit they pull. But you have to be human. You have to protect people mourning at a funeral. I think parents and loved ones have the right to say goodbye in peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

I think parents and loved ones have the right to say goodbye in peace.

---

They certainly deserve as much but its not a "right" as the one we are talking about here. I know you certainly didn't mean it as such but lots of people push their agenda by saying this or that is a "right".

Now, the protesters have a right explicitly defined in the Constitution and the government has no business infrining on that.

It kind of sucks from a humanist POV but these sort of things must be allowed in a free nation. You can't say, "well on one side we have these poor people that lost their kids and on the other side we have evil hate-filled slime, so we'll take away the rights of the slime".

I dunno. It was said above that you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater because bodily harm can occur from the ensuing panic.

Seems to me bodily harm can just as easily occur protesting a funeral. Funerals are emotionally charged already. People are broken up to begin with. I'd say it's hardly "non violent" to throw a metaphorical match into that powder keg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

I dunno. It was said above that you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater because bodily harm can occur from the ensuing panic.

Seems to me bodily harm can just as easily occur protesting a funeral. Funerals are emotionally charged already. People are broken up to begin with. I'd say it's hardly "non violent" to throw a metaphorical match into that powder keg.

---

Any protest has elements of a powder keg. Like when thousands protested the RNC in 2004. It is ridiculous to use that reality to crack down on the right to protest. It just cannot happen.

"hippies protest Bush" - well the lobbyists on K Street feel threatened, shut it down! Etc.

Its not even a matter of "slippery slope", its a matter of making sure rights are protected. Like I said the godhatesfags people have a right to protest. That cannot be infringed. Even if what they say is hateful.

And its not even the same thing - yelling "fire" is LYING. Similar to slander, LYING. Not the same.

Damn it, I guess you're right. OK, the law is crap when you look at it.

Still, those funeral protestors are just....evil-wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

I've always hated this line of thinking. It is the big reason I consider myself a conservative if anything. I HATE the idea of using the government as a tool to get your way.

I don't really think that is what the government is for.

---

Um. A mostly-conservative congress passed this law.

Anyone that thinks that lessening government prescence is a tenet of conservative/Republican values has obviously had their fingers in their ears for the entirety of this administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon

Um. A mostly-conservative congress passed this law.

---

As Ive said before, its important to distinguish real conservatives from the Bush Cult asswipes current in DC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arjue

If it were a funeral I was running, I'd get a fleet of poofters to fag off to really loud george michael music right infront of them.

---

Before he lost it, Michael Moore did that very thing.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

I have to admit, I have been thinking about this, and "bad prescident" arguments aside, I do see how an argument could be made that this isnt a free speech issue.

They are preventing the protesters from being within 150 feet of the cemetary, not making the protest itself a crime. One could argue this is no more a restriction of free speech than a "keep off the grass" sign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And Im not going to support taking away their rights, because then my rights are next.

---

I don't think so. I don't think that jump is so easily made. The only reason it's being instilled is because it's blatantly obtrusive to mourners. Nobody was even thinking about banning anything until these people started doing it, and it's what forced the governments hand in doing so.

I guess I don't think banning the right to be an idiot and protest loudly at someone's funeral is going to get the ball rolling against human freedoms we're guaranteed. I don't see it happening since this was brought on by a rather large group of people who's entire goal was to harrass the families of someone who just passed on. The government should classify this as a form of harrassment, because that's what this is.

And they still have the right to protest once the funeral processions are over with.

Canadians shouldn't be allowed to post in this thread. Because they don't understand what this shit is all about, apparently. Andrew proves as much by saying the same BS that Jetman and Cheebs both did, only to later admit their error. Im not gonna rehash what I said.

Quote:

---

I don't think that jump is so easily made.

---

The jump matters little. No step can be made, in any direction, that abridges the rights.

Quote:

---

One could argue this is no more a restriction of free speech than a "keep off the grass" sign.

---

Keep off the grass... on private property?

Nobody is saying private churches and cemetaries can't tell them to GTFO. But national cemetaries are public. Ive said it like 5 times.

Okay Im done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

The thing is, these are goddamn funerals.

---

So what? It's on public property. The public has the right to use it for whatever they want, including protest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bacon

Um. A mostly-conservative congress passed this law.

Anyone that thinks that lessening government prescence is a tenet of conservative/Republican values has obviously had their fingers in their ears for the entirety of this administration.

---

This Administration != Conservative. Today's Republicans != Conservative.

I don't know of a word to describe the Republican party today aside from "morons." Not that the Democrats are leagues better, mind you, they just support many civil liberties (like the right to protest). But then, didn't the Dems in Congress help pass this law, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calliander

I don't know of a word to describe the Republican party today aside from "morons."

---

Not quite morons...

http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/a...id=19475&stc=1

but morans.

I wonder what the world would be like if Bush and company were in power during the civil rights movement.

I'm willing to bet some people were really offended over those uppity black people doing whatever they wanted. I bet people even cried and got sad about it. (there is a bit of sarcasim in these past two sentences. can you find it?)

Hehe. I love that picture. It reminds me of one of those street vendors that was selling flowers. He had a sign that said, "FLOWERS HUGE MUNGUS BOOQETS!"

Would a reasonable person expect some semblance of privacy at their funeral? I say yes there is an expectation of privacy at a funeral, and it is not a black and white free speech issue.

It's a tricky thing though, because funerals are advertised in the newspaper for everyone to see. I would argue that the notices are in the paper so that relatives and friends can get the info, not intended for douchebags to set up a protest. And the burials are basically held on public property, although you DO have to buy the plot of land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JefmcC

Would a reasonable person expect some semblance of privacy at their funeral? I say yes there is an expectation of privacy at a funeral, and it is not a black and white free speech issue.

---

Constitution contains no right to privacy. ;)

Okay but thats a TOTALLY different matter.

Not that it matters, because "expectations" do not trump explicit rights.

Nobody has actually said anything that has convinced me it is NOT a black and white First Amendment issue. it's pretty clear to me it is the more I think about it. I dont know how these guys behave at their protests, but considering a lot of them are lawyers, they're probably orderly and peaceful, and just hold up their signs. That is exactly what is protected, and whatever is written on the signs is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Canadians shouldn't be allowed to post in this thread. Because they don't understand what this shit is all about, apparently.

---

Don't be a douche. One man's opinion is not an entire country's. I'm fully in the "everyone has the right to free speech, even assholes" camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

Don't be a douche. One man's opinion is not an entire country's. I'm fully in the "everyone has the right to free speech, even assholes" camp.

---

Sorry about that... but you gotta admit having Andrew is a major liability for you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Keep off the grass... on private property?

Nobody is saying private churches and cemetaries can't tell them to GTFO. But national cemetaries are public. Ive said it like 5 times.

---

Where does it say anywhere that public property means one can do anything they damn well please?

I can't run naked through a public park either, but I see no outcry for nudist's free speech rights there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I dont know how these guys behave at their protests, but considering a lot of them are lawyers, they're probably orderly and peaceful, and just hold up their signs. That is exactly what is protected, and whatever is written on the signs is irrelevant.

---

They also yell and heckle the mourners and yell all sorts of pretty nasty stuff about people they have never met, nor know a single thing about.

But like I said, I can see the argument, doesnt mean I agree with the law.

Quote:

---

I can't run naked through a public park either, but I see no outcry for nudist's free speech rights there.

---

You're a smart guy, you know what you just said here is retarded.

Quote:

---

Where does it say anywhere that public property means one can do anything they damn well please?

---

Nowhere, but you can do whatever is afforded to you by the Constitution.

Quote:

---

They also yell and heckle the mourners and yell all sorts of pretty nasty stuff about people they have never met, nor know a single thing about.

---

Then they should be arrested for harassment/disorderly conduct/whatever. I know that happened a LOT during the RNC, and like 92% of people were not charged. Funny.

I'm not so sure. What's more lewd about being naked than ranting about gays at a funeral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Canadians shouldn't be allowed to post in this thread. Because they don't understand what this shit is all about, apparently. Andrew proves as much by saying the same BS that Jetman and Cheebs both did, only to later admit their error. Im not gonna rehash what I said.

---

I didnt admit any error in my argument. I just pretty much came full circle in agreeing with this act that was passed. I understand that there are going to be some people like you who are paranoid about your rights being taken away, and yet their are people who want their right to mourn their loved ones protected. This law accounts for both. The protesters can still protest just not to where it harms a once in a lifetime cremony respecting another person's life. This isnt like protesting outside of an abortion clinic everyday or proclaiming your love for Satan while you walk down Third Avenue. This is ruining an event that these families paid money for to show their loved ones off. It shows a complete lack of disregard and common respect for your fellow man and I agree with what was decided by Congress.

No one, NO ONE, wants somebody to picket their loved ones funeral in this manner, not even by your admission you and not even the assholes doing it. So why put up with it?

Chill out with the propagandic attitude. No ones going to come in your house and take away your right to bear arms. No ones going to force you to worship the almighty starfish god Xenu. No ones going to force you to let Joe Bob Joe from the 9th Infantry live in your apartment. No ones going to throw your ass in prison tomorrow for the rest of your life without allowing you to defend yourself.

Their right to protest is still there. They can hold up signs and yell slander to their hearts content and walk around this guys grave like a bunch of loons if they want. Just fucking wait and hold up until his family is done seeing him off.
The act is fair to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Somebody smart said that once. Anyone who agrees with this law should just go ahead and move to China or some shit. The government will be happy to protect you from being offended over there, commie.

---

No body's giving up any liberty. And I'm sure Ben Franklin wouldnt have been chill with people doing this at his family's funeral.

and so I dont agree with families of troops wanting to respectfully send off their sons and daughters who protect these shitheads' right to picket so I deserve to go live in China? No I think THEY need to go live in China to learn a little respect for how great this country is :wtf:

And fuck off. I earned the right to live here,and my family has. Just as much as you. I understand and am thankful everyday for the rights I have. Maybe if you feel so fucked up the ass about a decision that our elected Congress made concerning this matter you should go live elsewhere.

I'm not sure of what the arguement going on here is. The bill isn't there to stop people from protesting, it's more like a restaining order for where they can protest. Given the circumstances, I can't see how this is negativly affecting any rational person. It's just there to keep a respectful buffer between mourners and sociopaths.

If someone is stalking/harassing you, you can get a court order to keep them away from you. Is that a first ammendment violation too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

The act is fair to me.

---

Every part of your argument is ridiculous. You are what's wrong with America today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

I didnt admit any error in my argument. I just pretty much came full circle in agreeing with this act that was passed. I understand that there are going to be some people like you who are paranoid about your rights being taken away, and yet their are people who want their right to mourn their loved ones protected. This law accounts for both.

---

Wrong, it puts one group's comfort over another's rights. It's wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

This is ruining an event that these families paid money for to show their loved ones off. It shows a complete lack of disregard and common respect for your fellow man and I agree with what was decided by Congress.

---

Wrong. These funerals are military ones taking place on public property and paid for by the taxpayer. These protestors have a right to be there. If the families didn't want to deal with these people, they'd have a ceremony on private property and be able to tell them to LEGALLY stay away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

No one, NO ONE, wants somebody to picket their loved ones funeral in this manner, not even by your admission you and not even the assholes doing it. So why put up with it?

---

You don't get to ignore people's rights just because it's a popular opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

Chill out with the propagandic attitude. No ones going to come in your house and take away your right to bear arms. No ones going to force you to worship the almighty starfish god Xenu. No ones going to force you to let Joe Bob Joe from the 9th Infantry live in your apartment. No ones going to throw your ass in prison tomorrow for the rest of your life without allowing you to defend yourself.

---

Maybe you want to let someone trample on the Constitution but I have more respect for it and my country to sit back and let it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

No body's giving up any liberty. And I'm sure Ben Franklin wouldnt have been chill with people doing this at his family's funeral.

---

"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse." - Ben Franklin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jetman

And fuck off. I earned the right to live here,and my family has. Just as much as you. I understand and am thankful everyday for the rights I have. Maybe if you feel so fucked up the ass about a decision that our elected Congress made concerning this matter you should go live elsewhere.

---

I have just as much right to be here and dissent as you do to be here and go lock step with this shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Every part of your argument is ridiculous. You are what's wrong with America today.

---

uh, I am? I didnt know decency and respect for a person's funerary rites was ridiculous and wrong. I think we are just going to have to disagree on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gozen

Wrong, it puts one group's comfort over another's rights. It's wrong.

---

And allowing the religious group to picket on site during the funeral would put their rights over those of the family to bury their kids. I'm not saying they have to stop completely just have a little bit of tact and respect and hold off on that nonsense until the proceedings are over. How would you feel if there was a religious group that thought R- rated movies were of the devil and decided to picket in the middle of the theater during a movie during a movie you were trying to watch. But, hey, just ignore it man, because that's their right to say whatever they please. You know, wouldnt want to ruin their "comfort" zone because everybody has to be happy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Wrong. These funerals are military ones taking place on public property and paid for by the taxpayer. These protestors have a right to be there. If the families didn't want to deal with these people, they'd have a ceremony on private property and be able to tell them to LEGALLY stay away.

---

I think these troops have earned the right to be buried with some dignity in a National cemetary. If you died in a helicopter over Iraq after it was shot down by an insurgent I'd say the same thing about you. Do you not have a single patriotic bone in your body?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gozen

You don't get to ignore people's rights just because it's a popular opinion.

---

They arent being ignored. They are being curtailed so as not to completely disturb and turn something sacred into a complete cluster fuck media grabbing show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gozen

Maybe you want to let someone trample on the Constitution but I have more respect for it and my country to sit back and let it happen.

---

Oh, come on. Well once the almighty Skynet takes over our country and monitors everything we say and do, then I'll join the Underground Movement of Gozen. Until that day, I think I'll stand behind a rational commen sense decision by our Congress to keep crazy religious groups from disturbing families during funerals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gozen

"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse." - Ben Franklin

---

"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment."
- Benjamin Franklin

Quote:

---

No body's giving up any liberty. And I'm sure Ben Franklin wouldnt have been chill with people doing this at his family's funeral.

---

Bullshit on the order of "the founding fathers were all Christian". He would've been the last person to stop people from exercising their rights.

Quote:

---

You are what's wrong with America today.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

And allowing the religious group to picket on site during the funeral would put their rights over those of the family to bury their kids.

---

Find me the place in Amendment 1-10 that says people have a right to bury their kids. Please. As I said before they certainly deserve that chance but the right to protest trumps that. It's really quite simple.

Quote:

---

How would you feel if there was a religious group that thought R- rated movies were of the devil and decided to picket in the middle of the theater during a movie during a movie you were trying to watch.

---

Private property.

Quote:

---

They arent being ignored. They are being curtailed so as not to completely disturb and turn something sacred into a complete cluster fuck media grabbing show.

---

No, they are being curtailed to the point of irrelevance. The right to protest without actually being able to protest is not a right at all.

Quote:

---

Oh, come on. Well once the almighty Skynet takes over our country and monitors everything we say and do, then I'll join the Underground Movement of Gozen. Until that day, I think I'll stand behind a rational commen sense decision by our Congress to keep crazy religious groups from disturbing families during funerals.

---

Fools like you just don't get it, and its why this country is in such sorry shape.

I don't even know why they need a specific law for funerals...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.law.com

disturbing the peace
n. upsetting the quiet and good order particularly through loud noise, by fighting or other unsocial behavior which frightens or upsets people. It is a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or brief term in jail.

---

Why wouldn't it fall under this?