Congress passes funeral protest ban

[Tory]

Bombastic overkill

We do not need yet another law, still less one that may well infringe on the First Amendment, to "protect" yet another special class.

To the extent the Phelps fruitloops convey a message about AIDS, Iraq, foreign policy in general or any other political issue, that message is protected speech.

To the extent they take that onto PRIVATE property, obstruct traffic, engage in "hate speech" or confrontation with private parties, they are engaged in harassment, trespass and other already-illegal activities.

Politicians tripping over themselves to curry favor by fawning over one group by demonizing another and using the Constitution to do it help no-one.

 

[Chris Rhines]

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

There isn't one. Harrassment can be, and frequently is, protected under the first amendment.

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.?

Public street? Then yes. I don't have to like it, and I don't, but you do indeed have that right.

You would be well-advised not to excercise it.

- Chris

 

[Matt King]

I think that Fred phelps need's to just shut up and leave those poor military families to their mourning.I think that this law is very constitutional. Since when did our founding Fathers make it okay to dishonor the men and women in our military? If he wants to spew hate against our wonderful armed forces, at least make him take it to Capitol Hill. If Funerals are Private Property way can't they just throw him out?

That man just disgust's me.

 

[RKCheung]

I think that Fred phelps need's to just shut up and leave those poor military families to their mourning.I think that this law is very constitutional.

And I think you are incorrect.

Since when did our founding Fathers make it okay to dishonor the men and women in our military?

Actually, the FF said some pretty distasteful things about standing armies..

If he wants to spew hate against our wonderful armed forces, at least make him take it to Capitol Hill. If Funerals are Private Property way can't they just throw him out?

These protests aren't taking place at the funerals, but outside of them on public streets.

That man just disgust's me.

He disgusts me too.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Every time they open their mouths they do their cause more harm. So, I suppose it would be best to just let them go on. However, I think there's something to be said for not allowing people to disrupt a lawful, private event. The event may be on public property, but it is a private event which has been sanctioned and is legal according to local ordinances. The state has an interest in enforcing any expressed or implied human right. In this case, there is a conflict between a right to free speech and a right to privacy for the family.

 

[c_yeager]

Gross restrictions of civil rights always seem "reasonable" at first. All the government needs is to find someone distastefull enough that people are willing to sell out their own freedom to deal with that person. Phelps' protests at cemetaries are absurd, however that doesnt mean that any potential protest would be equally distastefull, and even if they are, that is the price of freedom. A price that those dead soldiers know better than any fat beurocrat in Washington. If these guys were so damn concerned about our soldiers, maybe they we wouldnt have so many to bury in the first place.

 

[Cosmoline]

Phelps and clan are all over the news... AGAIN. This is getting out of control.

I understand the motivation behind this new law, but unfortunately all it's done is give Phelps and his crazed family/cult more of the media attention they crave. The self control of the funeral attendees is very impressive. The Phelps clan is the closest thing to absolute evil I've ever seen. Even the kids barely qualify as human. If it were my brother who had died, I know what I'd do. Not since the Waffen SS have we been faced with people who need to die in such a big way. Hopefully someone will slaughter them soon and we won't have to be bothered by these screaming demons anymore. But I'm afraid this is one problem the state will never be able to fix without causing more problems than it cures. It's a job for one man, unattached to the government, with a good rifle and a nice rooftop.

 

[Soybomb]

It was passed because what Phelps was doing was politically unsavory... criticizing homosexuality... the gay agenda folks urged their legislators to react.

Boy I don't really think this is about gay issues for anyone but phelp's bunch of nuts. I think the rest of the country really just sees it as trying to ensure that america's servicemen and women get laid to respect with the respect they have earned.

That said I also see some irony in restricting freedom of speech for slain defenders of freedom. I don't like the idea of "free speech zone" or restrictions on it any more than is absolutely necessary. When they cross over into fighting words, throw the book at 'em. When they barge onto private land arrest them. If they're on public land, not breaking noise ordnances and things of that nature they should be allowed to spew whatever bigoted idiotic crap they want. Its not really freedom if its only ok if you agree with the message.

 

[Cosmoline]

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

Camp David is WAY off the mark. Phelps and krew were doing this for many years to funerals of the allegedly gay. The law is a direct result of his decision to start protesting military funerals. Bush himself just got through criticizing homosexuality the other day.

 

[c_yeager]

Since the thread has been bumped I just want to say that I worry that this bans *all* protest at military cemetaries entirely. Now, it may be hard to imagine at this time, but such protests are not *necessarily* disrespectful just because they are at a cemetary. making them illegal in general has the potential to curtail valid expressions of freedom of speach, and this is only if you assume that Phelps' protests arent protected.

Unfortunatly, his protests as horribly disrespectfull and misguided as they, are politically and religiously motivated making them the most absolutely sacred from of free speech. The freedom to express unpopular and even unsanitary opinions is one of the most fundamental defining freedoms of this nation. Giving that up is giving up a big part of what America is about.

 

[cuchulainn]

Seems like a Heckler's Veto issue.

Should Phelps be able to use his free speech rights in a way that effectively denies the free speech and peaceable assembly rights of those attending the funerals?

That's tricky. Phelps isn't barred by the 1st Amt (he's not the govt.). But a reasonable person can see that he's purposely trying to deny the 1st Amt. rights of those at the funerals. What to do?

 

[mons meg]

When deciding First Amendment issues such as this, isn't there such a thing as the "captive audience" test? i.e. you don't necessarily have the right to spout your nonsense when the recipient cannot reasonably leave?

IANAL, but the law banning these protests at funerals seems to me to pass the captive audience test, since the mourners can't just pack up the bodies and leave for another cemetary.