Congress passes funeral protest ban

[AndyC]

Bill targets group that taunts mourners at military rites

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

The sponsor of the House bill, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, said he took up the issue after attending a military funeral in his home state, where mourners were greeted by "chants and taunting and some of the most vile things I have ever heard."

"Families deserve the time to bury their American heroes with dignity and in peace," Rogers said Wednesday before the House vote.

The demonstrators are led by the Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who has previously organized protests against those who died of AIDS and gay murder victim Matthew Shepard.

In an interview when the House bill passed, Phelps said Congress was "blatantly violating the First Amendment" rights to free speech in passing the bill. He said that if the bill becomes law he will continue to demonstrate but would abide by the restrictions.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, said the loved ones of those who die have already sacrificed for the nation and "we must allow them the right to mourn without being thrust into a political circus."

In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcycle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions.

More than a dozen states are considering similar laws to restrict protests at nonfederal cemeteries. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against a new Kentucky law, saying it goes too far in limiting freedom of speech and expression.

CNN

 

[Manedwolf]

I hope Phelps decides to violate it...and gets tossed in a Fed prison. He'd likely not last long.

 

[Firethorn]

You know, I'm actually fairly against this law. I mean, I'd like to see Phelps (unhighroad writings deleted) get his due, but this is, ultimately speaking, another law restricting free speech.

I much prefered the biker clubs drowning his ass out.

I think it'd be funny if all the stores/businesses refused to deal with him and his crowd.

 

[afsnco]

Maned,

I'm glad to see you're such a free speech advocate. As objectionable as their speech is, how is it not a violation of their First Amendment rights to silence them? Whenever any of us is arbitrarily silenced, all of us may be arbitrarily silenced. "Freedom of speech" isn't the same as "freedom from objectionable speech."

You seem pretty liberal on a lot of issues. Why not freedom of speech? Or is it just because you disagree with their message that you want them silenced? You can't do that. To be consistent, to retain your own right to say things that are objectionable to others, you must fight for other's right to say things that are objectionable to you.

Same with the ACLU: Will they fight this or let it slide because they disagree with the messenger and the message?

 

[ball3006]

The question is.....

why hasn't Bush signed this bill yet............chris3

 

[Erebus]

I doesn't even touch on limiting what they can say. It addresses where they can say it.

Kinda like the kids that physically blocked access to recruiters on campus. Freedom of speech? Not at all in my opinion. If you want to protest be my guest. But when you start disrupting other peoples lives by deliberately putting yourself in their way it's no longer a protest or speech, it's intrusion, it's infringing on that person's personal liberty.

Freedom of Speech was never intended to be used to intrude on other people's lives. It was intended to allow one to be able to diseminate any message they choose to.

Blocking traffic, recruiters, and disrupting funerals is NOT speech.

 

[Manedwolf]

Because freedom of speech or not, there's some things that are just beyond any scope of civilized behavior to do.

And doing what they do at the funerals of dead, honored soldiers who just died for their country, who had NOTHING to do with the issue, even, is well into that territory. There's free speech, and there's violating the rights of the grieving family who is saying goodbye to a son, daughter, sibling, parent or spouse for the last time. For a parent whose kid was just killed by an IED to see the man holding up a sign saying "thank god for IEDs"...?

Even Neanderthals respected the dead, they've found burials with flowers in the grave.

Phelps is apparently rather lower on the scale. And really, I wouldn't say it's a just law, first-amendment-wise, my only hope is that if they pass it, he violates it and gets put in with federal prisoners.

Nothing to do with logic, there, I'd have to admit. I just think he's representative of the worst that humanity can produce.

 

[afsnco]

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." -Noam Chomsky

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." -US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[googol]

Funeral protests

I'm a free speech partisan, but that doesn't mean I'd let Fred Phelps put his nasty mouth 18 inches from my ear and scream his insane gibberish through a bullhorn.
An easier and less constitutionally controversial move would be to make it legal to thump the head of anyone acting like a jackass at a funeral. The biker veterans (and plenty of other volunteers) would be happy to oblige, the nutcase Christians could feel sanctimonious in their martyrdom, and the grieving families would get at least one smile on an otherwise sad day. That would be a win-win-win.

 

[boofus]

I'd rather see Phelps get punched in the gut than more laws abridging the wheres and whens of the 1st amendment on public property. If the cemetary is private property couldn't they just arrest them for criminal trespass ?

 

[agricola]

One would have thought someone would have just filled in Phelps and his bunch of loons long ago, though its noticeable that the places he decides to picket those places where he is unlikely to get such a reception. Lets face it, I doubt any jury in the western world would find anyone guilty who beat up Phelps or one of his minions for picketing a loved one's funeral.

Also, while protecting free speech is important, its notable that the WBC doesnt support that right when it comes to criticism of itself, as the people who have put on The Laramie Project have found.

 

[Smurfslayer]

some things that are just beyond any scope of civilized behavior to do

We have a winner ladies and gentlemen.

There's a fine line between exercising the rights to peaceably assemble and to speak freely and creating breach of the peace. Antagonizing the family and friends of a fallen soldier, sailor, airman or marine at their loved one's funeral seems pretty obviously an overt breach of peace having the sole ambition of taunting a group of people in mouning of the loss of someone dear. There's a word for this kind of behavior, you might have all heard it before:

Provocation.

 

[Phetro]

As reprehensible as these people's behavior is, and as much as I am ashamed to see it in America, I cannot help but realize that it is beyond the authority of the government to control such behavior. Behavior is to be controlled by the conscience of the individual, adhering to a moral and just code of conduct. But should the individual fail to do this, government still has no authority to force him.

People like Smurfslayer and Manedwolf are trying to reframe the argument as one about the nature of the behavior. It is not: it is solely about government authority.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Maybe we shouldn't "infringe" their right to free speech - just require them to be registered (with a background check) for each funeral that they want to protest. The License to Protest would have to be issued within 45 days of the application is and is valid only for a specific funeral. You know, "common sense" regulation.

 

[Camp David]

Inasmuch as I dislike Phelps and think that anyone protesting at a military funeral has a screw loose, this law is discriminatory. It was passed because what Phelps was doing was politically unsavory... criticizing homosexuality... the gay agenda folks urged their legislators to react.

If this ruling stands, it can be used to defeat 1st Amendment rights everywhere as a precedent... the ACLU will overturn it within the week.

Before you flame me, I support the discouragement of Phelps-type protests via other means: car blocks, police blockades, permits, etc. however a selective denial of 1st amendment rights is unconstitutional... it won't last a challenge in court!

 

[Firethorn]

Inasmuch as I dislike Phelps and think that anyone protesting at a military funeral has a screw loose, this law is discriminatory. It was passed because what Phelps was doing was politically unsavory... criticizing homosexuality... the gay agenda folks urged their legislators to react.

While there were some mutters and pressure by gays when phelps picked funerals for gays, he didn't make national mainstream media news until he started making an asshat of himself by picketing soldier's funerals.

This managed to get him hated by both the right(protesting at a soldier's funeral? Shocking bad form, chap), and left(he's against gays, discrimination!!!).

Boofus, the problem is that Phelps is a lawyer and mongers the line as close as he can. He doesn't step foot onto church or cemetary property, but they're quite loud and annoying just from the closest sidewalk.

Still, I'm suprised that he hasn't been hauled in for 'attempting to incite a riot', 'disturbing the peace', etc...

 

[Rumble]

Phelps being a lawyer, I'm sure he's walking as close as possible to the "fighting words" boundary, too.

Still...this is not likely to stand, nor do I think it should.

 

[insidious_calm]

It never fails...

...the nutcase Christians could feel sanctimonious in their martyrdom, and the grieving families would get at least one smile on an otherwise sad day. That would be a win-win-win.

Ah yes, the "Nut Case" christians. You know, stupidity like this ^^^ is why America the experiment has failed. Do you know the Phelps's? Do you live in their town? Unless you can answer yes to one or both of those then that is a judgement you're not entitled to make.

I DO live in their town. We have been dealing with their particular brand of ignorance for more years than I can count. I have to walk my wife and children by their protest after church most sundays. For the record, Phelps claims to be a baptist minister, but the church refuses to recognize him and refuses any affiliation. Nothing about what he is doing is christian like. He is not "witnessing" to people. He feeds on media attention. The reason he went national is because the locals started to ignore him. It made them furios when the press quit showing up. You, the congress, and the rest of the ignorant people who actually believe this is a good law are only feeding the problem.

I loathe the Phelps's and everything they do. I will not however give up ANY of my free speech rights in order to silence the likes of them. You don't even see the Irony in the fact that soldiers who died for things like freedom of speech are now having their families and congress critters take action to deny freedom of speech. Henry Bowman apparently gets the irony judging by his post. Those who so eagerly rape the constitution for whatever is the latest inconvienience make me sick! Whether it's Phred Phelps, "officer safety", eminent domain, or otherwise "for the children", attitudes like that ARE the problem.

Phelps is sick and deteriorating rapidly. Several of his children have left the "church", and he continues to lose following. Stop feeding his ego. Stop being part of the problem. Ignore him like we do and he WILL become irrelevant. Let him die a lonely forgotten old man in some back room of some forgotten nursing home. The whole family is made up of attorneys. Literally a dozen or so. They have already won lawsuits against the city and state for things just like this. In closing LEAVE MY CONSTITUTION ALONE!


I.C.

 

[ArmedBear]

insidious, et al.

There's nothing unconstitutional that I can see about providing a quiet space for funerals.

I can be thrown out of a tax-funded public library for singing the national anthem enthusiastically, or be liable criminally and civilly for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater for my own amusement. I can't barge into a random public classroom whenever I want and give a political speech to the kids, without being arrested. I never read anyone here bitching about "my rights being violated" in these cases, nor would I expect to.

This is the same thing. A funeral can be a protected space for a specific purpose, just like a library or a schoolhouse.

Or do you think that we should all have the right to coercively take away the rights of those who go to a designated space to read a book?

 

[Erebus]

Again, It's not about his speech. It's about his intrusion/disruption in other people's liberties.

 

[Lupinus]

it isn't a free speech issue.

If it was, then they would be be passing a bill saying it is illegal to say god hates fags and telling his group one more word about Iraq being gods retribution for supporting fags and you are going to jail.

No, they are saying you can't stand outside the funeral of a fallen soldier and disrupt a familys right to bury their dead and honor a soldier for giving his life so Freddy boy can print all the garbage he wants....just not shout it outside of the soldiers funeral.

 

[nico]

To the folks who think this is a first Amendment issue: where's the line between freedom of speech and harrassment?

Say you're having a family barbecue, should I be allowed to stand on the street in front of your house yelling at you about how you're going to hell, are evil, etc.?

 

[tellner]

I believe that Phelps has a right to say all sorts of unpleasant things. But what he is doing could reasonably be considered harrassment, incitement to riot, "behavior likelyt to provoke a breach of the peace" and a number of other things. It's not just freedom of speech. It's not just protection of the bereaved. I just wonder why the Bill is aimed at military funerals. Aren't all funerals deserving of the same protection? Or shouldn't queers (or soldiers if you will) get the same treatment as anyone else?

 

[merk]

Its a shame this issue has to be government mandated. I wonder where society forgot to leave such personal matters to family and friends.

 

[Smurfslayer]

It is not: it is solely about government authority

If these people - and I use the term people loosely - truly want to speak freely, then all they need to do is do it in an appropriate venue. If you're concerned about the .gov deciding what venue or venues are appropriate, that train already left the station. We've already declared no picket zones around various buildings, already upheld. This is a logical extension in response to conduct undertaken solely for the purpose of inciting and provoking the people attending a funeral.

There is no 'redress of grievance' to be achieved here unless the funeral is for a relative of a high .gov official. Even so, the detrimental effect to the family and friends attending the funeral far outweighs the protester's right to speak in a loud, obnoxious, hate mongering tirade. If the protesters respond with amplifiers and bullhorns, then shut them down with noise ordinances. It's ok to have quiet zone or no picket zone to allow for mourners at a funeral, but expanding the area to something ridiculous (1 mile or whatever) would seem to me to be unrealistic.

As PP pointed out, Nobody's telling the protesters that he'll be arrested for his "thank God for IEDs" signs, they're standing up for the mourners protecting their right to a quiet, peaceful send off for their loved one - one of those unenumerated rights referred to in the Constitution.