Banning Protests At Funerals

[Rachmaninoff]

Before we get started you'll want to take a moment to read this article: [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21578578/"][U]Dad sues funeral picketers[/U][/URL] Now if you didn't read it, to give you an idea of what the deal is here, this is what happened:

[INDENT]While services were being held, three adults and four children from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., picketed on a sidewalk within view of the church, holding signs, including ones that read ?Thank God For Dead Soldiers? and ?God Hates Fags.?[/INDENT]
Basically, once the father of the soldier learned of this he sued the church that was involved in it and won. Also:

[INDENT]Since the protest at Matthew Snyder?s funeral, Maryland has joined a number of other states in passing laws prohibiting the kind of demonstrations the Westboro church stages at funerals.[/INDENT]
And having read the article I agree with this. I honestly find the motives behind the protest unbelievable ignorant and inappropriate. I can't even imagine how anyone would think that doing something like this would be acceptable.

I'm going to leave it at that because frankly that kind of behavior disgusts me. As the article says the group is using the First Amendment guarantee of free speech to spread hate and inflict pain on grieving families. I agree with that statement. That and I find the whole thing kind of sad really.

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]I have to wonder if the people in that church have ever actually read the Bible for themselves. :animesigh[/color]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I hate the Westboro Baptist Church with all my soul, and I'm glad Snyder won his case.

But the church has a strong constitutional argument; as disgusting as their protests may be, they're protected by the 1st Amendment. What probably worked for Snyder here was the emotion it brought upon the jury, and I don't blame them. But from what I've heard the church could appeal strongly that 10.9 million is excessive and unrealistic. Charges of disturbing the peace and contributing to the delinquincy of a minor and emotional distress cannot possible add up to 10.9 million; the church only has 1 million in assets and 10.9 is just beating a dead cow. [/font]

[Fasteriskhead]

Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps have a long, distinguished history of attacking just about everyone in the world and generally behaving in pretty much the most hateful way imaginable. My favorite recent example can be viewed [URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e0_1178304529"][u]here[/u][/URL], where they pooh pooh the Virginia Tech massacre (for reasons somewhat different from what you might expect).

Basically what you've got in these folks is a pseudo-Christian cult about 100 strong, mostly composed of members of Phelps' family. In other words, they're completely marginal, much more than the kind of attention they get in the media tends to suggest. They run their own video news service and generally use all the power of technology to tell us how we're all under the control of jews and homosexuals and will soon be killed in the most violent way possible. They absolutely [i]love[/i] getting attention, the more openly critical the better - because hey, if people are offended, it means their crackpot views must be right! Even better if people want them arrested or dead!

Regarding Westboro and Phelps having to kick up $11 million, I'm absolutely ecstatic to see these wackos get called on their ****. The responsible side of me loves seeing justice done; the less responsible looks forward to the videos they will inevitably make whining about their martyred status and helplessly fantasizing about the deaths of everyone "persecuting" them. So, I guess everyone wins.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']
Regarding Westboro and Phelps having to kick up $11 million, I'm absolutely ecstatic to see these wackos get called on their ****. The responsible side of me loves seeing justice done; the less responsible looks forward to the videos they will inevitably make whining about their martyred status and helplessly fantasizing about the deaths of everyone "persecuting" them. So, I guess everyone wins.[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I was pretty happy too, lol, but does anyone know what happens when the convicted can't cough up that much dough? 11 million is just...[i]massive[/i]. [/font]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']Regarding Westboro and Phelps having to kick up $11 million, I'm absolutely ecstatic to see these wackos get called on their ****. [/QUOTE]Even if the fine could be considered excessive, I too am glad to see something like this finally happen. It's long overdue really.

[The13thMan]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Ok, after reading the news article i have two starting comments i want to make:
1. Oh no! He sued God!
and
2. Not Sweden!

And now for the serious. Their logic in all of this is so flawed and pathetic that it's a wonder any of them can dress themselves in the morning [B]and [/B]make picketing signs, much less organize a protest. Obviously there isn't any flawed logic in the belief in god (debateable?) but there is just so much in assuming that he hates homosexuals to the point of killing totally innocent soldiers in Iraq. There seems to be virtually no connection. It just doesn't follow. It both angers and saddens me... mostly anger.

I'm no law student, but i was under the impression that freedom of speech didn't protect freedom of hate speech. Especially the speech that elicits violence, like the KKK. Now, i don't know where i got this idea or if it's valid. Can someone look it up for me? I'm quite lazy and tired.

I'm not a christian, and i've certainly had my differences with christians and their beliefs in the past, but i'm no moron. I know that these guys are complete radicals and (in my opinion) shouldn't even be considered christian. What bothers me is that i know people out there will look at these guys and get a bad idea about the christian religion. By being associated with the church they are representatives of it and in my honest opinion are spitting on some of christianity's most valued ideals. I say we all get together and burn their houses down! Yeah!!! ::riot::

No, that last part was a joke. Unfortunately, i don't think there is a realistic solution to changing these peoples' minds or stopping them from protesting, unless of course this court case bankrupts them and leave's 'em so dirt poor they can't even afford the cardboard and markers to picket. And i don't wish that upon anybody, even these guys.

This whole matter is depressing. I wish there was a way to fix it. :bash:
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='The13thMan'][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic] Unfortunately, i don't think there is a realistic solution to changing these peoples' minds or stopping them from protesting, unless of course this court case bankrupts them and leave's 'em so dirt poor they can't even afford the cardboard and markers to picket. And i don't wish that upon anybody, even these guys. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Sure there's a solution, it's called a straight jacket and a padded room. XP At least I wish their behavior was due to some form of insanity. It's so sick and sad that it's pathetic.

Also, I'll echo the sentiment that it's about time they got clobbered for the nonsense they've been putting out. There's just no excuse for that kind of behavior in my opinion.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]Thank God for the logic of the courts. I have to say, if it was my brother's funeral and these creeps turned up outside, I would quite certainly beat the ever-living **** out of them for doing so. A father losing a son is an immensely tragic thing which doesn't need to be made worse so some group of bastards can spread a message of hatred.[/SIZE]

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="77656"]I heard about this on Megatokyo Forums, didn't reply then, bt it's much more interesting on OB. I'm with Gavin on this one, I'd beat the living **** out of those guys if they even [I]thought [/I]about doing that.

Thank god for dead soldiers? God hates fags? Give me a break. They fought for their country and they get a bunch of ignorant gay-bashing-****faced-dicklicking ******** saying that dead sodliers are good? First of all, I'd throw them into a war and watch their ***** get shot to hell. And second of all, maybe they hate fags, but have any one of them talked to god and hear god say "I hate fags?" No I don't think so.

Honestly I think they should burn in the fiery pits of hell, and they should all get raped by the devil. It's sad that people act this way, and it also sickens me. These people should be sent to jail for life. Pickiting the death of a soldier? Oh come the **** on. If people were anymore ignorant you wouldn't be able to have a friend of the same sex.

[QUOTE]The church has a Web page which is dominated by anti-homosexual themes and which claims that among the places God hates and plans to destroy are America, Canada and Sweden.[/QUOTE]

This is perhaps the dumbest thing they cold do. If I ahd the power I'd **** on this site from my computer. And why are you living in the US when it's going to be destroyed? God must hate you also. These people have sooooooooooooooooo many flaws in their biliefs that it's not even funny.

Maybe, just maybe, god will burn these guys into hell himself, rather than have the devil grab 'em. Hell, I woudl personally go to these guys and shoot them if I had to. These guys are ****er, douchebags, cockmunches and *******. Dine in hell why don't you?[/COLOR]

[Justin]

The states are wrong for banning the protests, bottom line. That's not the states' place, and anytime the government tells anyone that protesting is wrong, it should make us all uncomfortable.

However, the Phelps deserved to lose the case. And I don't really think $11 million is excessive. This is especially true if the God they claim to represent exists. Because, if and when they should meet him, I suspect that they'll get their just desserts.

I find these people, as most do, to be deplorable. Normally, when there is a person or people whom I do not agree with philosophically or religiously, I'd be willing to discourse with them on our differences, for conversation's sake. These people, however, seem like the [i]talking[/i] type; as opposed to the [i]conversing[/i] type.

-Justin

[Gavin]

[quote name='Kam']The states are wrong for banning the protests, bottom line. That's not the states' place, and anytime the government tells anyone that protesting is wrong, it should make us all uncomfortable.

-Justin[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"]While I understand where you're coming from Justin, I have to disagree with you speaking specifically in regard to banning protests at funerals. People deserve to be able to grieve for their dead with dignity, regardless of what they did in life, without having to deal with people camped outside the Church protesting. Yes, even for people who did utterly evil things in life, their family deserve that last goodbye to be private.[/SIZE]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][quote name='Kam']The states are wrong for banning the protests, bottom line. That's not the states' place, and anytime the government tells anyone that protesting is wrong, it should make us all uncomfortable.[/QUOTE]I can't agree. If someone were to come to my yard and picket with signs for whatever reason I would have the right to request that they leave and the law would back that up. Besides, they aren't stopping them from protesting, they are requiring them to be so far away from the actual funeral proceedings. Or there is a time limit as to when they are allowed to protest. Also, before we go down the path of it's unconstitutional, keep in mind that a funeral is not a public forum and was never intended to be one.

Laws limiting demonstrations are not new in the United States. Since Sept. 11, 2001, some states have passed laws limiting protests near airports. Protests are also generally limited within a certain number of feet from the Presidential motorcade, and are prohibited within federal buildings. Public protests are barred from private events and places by general trespass regulations. So it's not like we're suddenly restricting someone's rights here. You have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to how much someone can get in your face to express their views. Freedom of speech does not give you absolute liberty to do whatever you want.

Those people are spiteful and hateful idiots who are using people's grief over losing a loved one to push their sick agenda into the spotlight. And for them to lose the lawsuit, even though they'll attempt to martyr themselves as a result, is something that was as my mom put it, long overdue.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE="1"]While I understand where you're coming from Justin, I have to disagree with you speaking specifically in regard to banning protests at funerals. People deserve to be able to grieve for their dead with dignity, regardless of what they did in life, without having to deal with people camped outside the Church protesting. Yes, even for people who did utterly evil things in life, their family deserve that last goodbye to be private.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I'd have to agree with Gavin on this one. I couldn't imagine how furious i would be if someone protested at my dad's funeral, or anybody in my immediate family that i would gladly die for.

That said, i don't think it's a good thing to promote violence against these people while at the same time if they did do it at a funeral for someone i loved i would probably take a shotgun and blow them all away. Ok, maybe not that, i wouldn't kill 'em. But i do think i would walk up to 'em casually, maybe even smiling a little for what i knew i was about to do, and just start beating the crap out of them. I know this is slightly hypocritical, but what can i do? Humans are hypocritical by nature because of the way emotion conflicts so easily with logic. So yeah, no violence unless they're protesting at your funeral.


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='Kam']The states are wrong for banning the protests, bottom line. That's not the states' place, and anytime the government tells anyone that protesting is wrong, it should make us all uncomfortable.[/QUOTE]There is definitely a first amendment rights issue here, but I'm going to have to side with the crowd on this one. Protecting private funerals from protesters, to me, just doesn't seem to be on the same level as (for example) interfering with the freedom of the press. Let's say some Bad Person died (a Pinochet-alike, maybe) and I would like to say (very publicly and very loudly) that the guy was a monster, but I am prohibited by law from picketing the thing within 500 feet. Even if that's the case, though, I am still perfectly free to condemn the Bad Person in other ways - in the newspapers, on the internet, at public events, or even on a street corner a few hundred feet away from the funeral itself. Although I might be annoyed that I have to move down a block or two, I do not think this would be a particularly significant infringement on my right to protest. At worst, I think it ends up balanced quite evenly against the protection of a family's right to express their grief, such as it is, in peace - even if it's the family of a Bad Person.

On the other hand, when the government starts telling us that we can only ever exercise the right to protest in a strictly designated area well removed from anything important, [I]then [/I]we can really start worrying. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone"][u]Oh, wait...[/u][/URL]

[Justin]

Point taken, about the privacy of funerals. I should also mention that I wasn't aware that they simply restricted how near protesters could be to such proceedings, which I think is the most fair option.

You have to understand, in light of our government's abuses of civil liberties recently, it's hard for me not to jump to the worst of possible conclusions. Reading that statement now, I see how quickly that can lead to other violations of [i]humanity.[/i]

All that said, I still don't find the action taken against the Phelps in civil court to be excessive. Thank God for democracy, flawed as it may be in human hands. Because if I ruled the world, justice would be tainted with vengeance, to say the least.

-Justin

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Is is just me, or do the Free Speech Zone barriers look a little too much like props from [I]Escape from New York[/I]?

I'm glad you people realize that the Phelps mob doesn't represent our beliefs in any way. Thank you for being sane.[/FONT]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Kam']You have to understand, in light of our government's abuses of civil liberties recently, it's hard for me not to jump to the worst of possible conclusions. Reading that statement now, I see how quickly that can lead to other violations of [i]humanity.[/i][/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"]Sure, which is why I said I was speaking only in relation to the funerals bit. Governments abusing civil liberties is something that seems to be a major problem in the States, all we have over here is bastards who like to spend obscene amounts of money unnecessarily and then take in more through stealth taxes. For instance, fun fact, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern is paid more than American President George Bush.[/SIZE]

[Japan]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Wow....

I am totally shocked after watching that video. They are certainly misguided and I can see how the father won. God hates the sin but loves the sinner. They certainly seemed to forget that important fact. Reminds me of the pharisees from Bible times. They thought themselves all high and mighty yet they were so hypocritical. I do feel that the end times are well on their way, but thank God for these incidents? When I was watching that video, I basically rested my head in my hands and shook my head. How can they say things like God hates fags etc etc. Since when does a church of god use such derogatory terms?[/COLOR]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"]It's too bad that the lawsuit is giving this group publicity, and yet at the same time I'm pleased to see them finally get called on that BS they like to do. As for the limitations on protesting, considering that as others have said it's a funeral and that the restriction is on times and distance. Really, that just makes common sense. There's no denial of their right to express what they feel, they're being required like everyone else to keep said protests out of someone's face in a non public forum. That's like someone coming into your home and screaming at you because they hate the fact that you're different or for some other reason.

Funeral's are a personal matter for the family of the lost loved ones and not the place to be spouting garbage only meant to be spiteful and hateful. It's an underhanded tactic meant only to gain attention without regard to who gets hurt in the process. And like others have said, if any fool had done such a thing at my brother's funeral... I would have gutted them and strung them up at the nearest tree. [/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]Completely agreeing with Crystia, does anyone else want the U.S. government to pass an act allowing people to shoot members of the Westboro Church if they break their funeral ban ? I can imagine they mightn't go to too many more military funerals if there are honour guards.[/SIZE]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Oh, dear [I]Lord[/I] yes! Yes yes yes!! I'd even enlist in a heartbeat just for that pleasure.[/FONT]

[Shy]

[size=1]I fully support the group's right to protest. I don't neccessarily agree with their tactics, but most cemeteries are private property. If the owner of the land doesn't want protesters on his property that should be the end of the discussion right there. If this church group wants to protest outside of the cemetary they should have the right to.

You can't just pick and choose when and where you want people to protest.

-Shy[/size]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][quote name='Shy'][size=1]I fully support the group's right to protest. I don't neccessarily agree with their tactics, but most cemeteries are private property. If the owner of the land doesn't want protesters on his property that should be the end of the discussion right there. If this church group wants to protest outside of the cemetary they should have the right to.

You can't just pick and choose when and where you want people to protest.

-Shy[/size][/QUOTE]Uh Shy, you just made no sense there. If you can't pick where people can't protest, that's also saying the owner of the land can't decide either. XP Silly, you're sort of contradicting yourself here. Also, many cemeteries are not private, they are public property, we have many here that belong to the city and others that are private as well. So that argument is flawed, or rather if what you say is accurate then in the case of say the one's owned by the city, they have every right to limit protests and that includes the distance aspect since that applies to other forms of protests. No one said they couldn't. :p

The whole point of putting restrictions in place doesn't stop them from protesting, it stops them from being able to disrupt the funeral in process. I realize what your saying but your falling on the sheer technical aspect of the law instead of taking into account the spirit in which something like this would mean. And frankly what that church is doing would also fall under Disturbing the peace, which by the way is a crime. Those signs and things they have said are in my opinion likely to incite violence.

Also, I'll say it again, a funeral is not a public forum, and what that church is doing is assine, hateful and nothing more than a sick tactic to draw attention to themselves. They can get that message out without intruding on what is strictly a private moment for families. So no Shy, I will disagree with you 100% on this. Laws limit society for a reason, and in my opinion, this is a limitation that is needed. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Shy]

[size=1]The right to own property often goes hand-in-hand with the right to privacy. If the cemetery was private property then the church group would have no legal authority to do what they did. Funerals for public figures are constantly protested, that's why most choose to have private services as opposed to a very public burial.

I don't see the "right to mourn" outweighing the right to free speech. Family, friends and mourners have the ability to do so in private but a public funeral is just that: public. Just because someone offends you doesn't mean that they don't have the right to. You can't strip away individual rights just because some of them don't agree with you.

The mourners should be allowed to reserve a certain amount of space for their funeral, just like people can do for a private party at a park. But I don't think it's fair to ban protests from any public space entirely. Next you're going to want to stop protesting at courthouses because people get married there.

-Shy[/size]