Banning Protests At Funerals

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Shy][size=1']Next you're going to want to stop protesting at courthouses because people get married there.[/size][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Actually, that's part of the ceremony. "If any now present object to this union, speak now, or forever hold your peace." Or something like that. :p

Your logic doesn't hold much water. This was not a public figure; it was a young man who died in the line of duty to his country, and the protesters were not protesting his funeral, but the morals of this country. If I may quote Snyder:
[QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"]?Everybody?s under the impression that the First Amendment gives them the right to do anything, say anything ? anywhere at any time. Along with the First Amendment also comes responsibility.?[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
Just because you have the [I]abillity[/I] to say something [U]does[/U] [U]not[/U] mean you have the [I]right[/I]. The First Amendment was written so that citizens would not have their voices taken away by a government they disagreed with, [I]not[/I] so they can be ***-holes. If a group wants to protest it's [U]government's[/U] stand on ethics, then let them do it in front of a legislative building or other such [U]government[/U] building. Chances are, if I am going to beat the ever-loving **** out of you because you were cheering on my son's death, I wouldn't give a flying flip about your damn First Amendment rights, because you [I]consciously chose to abuse them.[/I]

No. They didn't have the right to be there and do what they did. At All.[/FONT]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Shy'][size=1]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][/QUOTE]Shy, you need to read the details of the bans since they aren't bans per se. Most states are restricting them to being a certain distance away and not an outright ban that won't let them protest at all. That's more than fair in my mind since it's not a true ban in any sense of the word.
[/COLOR]

[Vicky]

[SIZE=1]I thought God's omni-benevolent, so he can't hate 'fags'. Right?

To be honest I don't even know the laws over here, nor that much of the whole 'freedom of speech' thing in America. I don't think there's a [i]law[/i] about it here, because we just speak freely anyway. I think I'll get a lot of people disagreeing here, but they should not be protected against an Amendment or whatever, because there should be no law about being free to speak; we should already know we have that freedom.

So yes, the group did have a right to say what they wanted, but that doesn't mean they were right at all. It's quite a mixed up issue. You [i]should[/i] say what you want (law or no), but you [i]shouldn't[/i] use your freedom to promote hate. What people choose to do with their opinions in their own choice and what they get for it is their own fault. That's the irony of this so-called 'freedom of speech', it's not free at all. There's a consequence.

Either way they have the right to protest, but they're still damn out of order and I'm glad they got their arses sued. Personally I would have shoved the 'God hates fags' sign up their arse, because I never understood that part. I'd also shoot them and tell everyone it was God's wrath.[/SIZE]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Vicky][SIZE=1']I'd also shoot them and tell everyone it was God's wrath.[/SIZE][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Good show! [I]*smack'd*[/I]

You're right, by the way. God doesn't hate homosexuals. He hates homosexuality, but not the person.[/FONT]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
This was not a public figure; it was a young man who died in the line of duty to his country, and the protesters were not protesting his funeral, but the morals of this country. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

There is nowhere in the constitution that says you have to protest public figures in order to invoke your right to the first amendment. If you have some sort of constitutional proof to back up what you're saying, I'll concede, but the first amendment doesn't say anything about that. [/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Just because you have the [I]abillity[/I] to say something [U]does[/U] [U]not[/U] mean you have the [I]right[/I]. The First Amendment was written so that citizens would not have their voices taken away by a government they disagreed with, [I]not[/I] so they can be ***-holes. If a group wants to protest it's [U]government's[/U] stand on ethics, then let them do it in front of a legislative building or other such [U]government[/U] building. Chances are, if I am going to beat the ever-loving **** out of you because you were cheering on my son's death, I wouldn't give a flying flip about your damn First Amendment rights, because you [I]consciously chose to abuse them.[/I]

No. They didn't have the right to be there and do what they did. At All.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] It doesn't matter what the first amendment was intended to do, it's what's written that counts. The constitution was intended to make Congress the strongest of our three branches, but now it's our weakest. Does it matter? No, because there's nothing in our constitution that says "congress must be the most powerful of the three branches".

People can be ******** when they petition to the government; they can be ******** when they invoke their right to assemble. Again, where does it say in the first amendment that you can only petition the [i]government[/i]? Where does it say you can only assemble in order to protest the [i]government[/i]? Yes, it's a [i]part[/i] of the first amendment ("to petition the government for a redress of grievances"), but it's by no means the [i]only[/i] part of the first amendment.

Most everyone in this thread favors disregarding the first amendment because in this particular case, the actions are universally disgusting and stupid. It doesn't matter what you feel, it's the constitutionality of it. The Westboro church has a strong case, no matter how idiotic they are. You can't choose to bend the Constitution to fit what you feel.[/font]

[Aberinkula]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Good show! [I]*smack'd*[/I]

You're right, by the way. God doesn't hate homosexuals. He hates homosexuality, but not the person.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="77656"]I guess that's a genuine case of hate the sin, love the sinner. [/COLOR]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"]Most everyone in this thread favors disregarding the first amendment because in this particular case, the actions are universally disgusting and stupid. It doesn't matter what you feel, it's the constitutionality of it. The Westboro church has a strong case, no matter how idiotic they are. You can't choose to bend the Constitution to fit what you feel.[/font][/QUOTE]Actually, in that context, we have every right to say we think this shouldn't be allowed, constitutionally we have the right to say we think the first amendment shouldn't allow this kind of harassment. Saying that how we feel about it doesn't matter isn't correct. And who's to say it's bending the constitution? We haven't denied them the right to have their opinion. We're vocally saying that we believe they are violating the privacy of other individuals by protesting at a funeral of all things.

That's not us disregarding the first amendment, that's us saying those pig headed fools are hiding behind it to incite a riot and gather attention to their views in a more dramatic fashion. If there wasn't some truth to this then that case of being sued would have died instead of actually being won. The constitution isn't absolute and just as that group has the right to protest so do we to say that their protest at a funeral doesn't fall under free speech rights.

No one is saying they can't protest, we're saying that in a non-public setting, which is what a funeral is, they should be required to keep their distance, even if that distance is just outside the funeral grounds. Even protesting the government is the same, since when were they allowed to go inside the white house? They protest outside and are required to keep a reasonable distance. Honestly how hard is this concept for people to grasp here?

Go and read the ban, it's not against protesting it's against doing so on the actual property or within 300 feet of said property. The idiots can protest all they want, they just have to keep their distance like you have to do at any protest regardless of the reason. :animesigh We have the same law here in Utah, they can protest they just can't get in your face on the funeral grounds to do so. If the president is protected from someone walking right into his office, then why the hell should the rest of the public be denied the same treatment?[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Justin]

And here we have a classic debate. One that has gone on for decades. How far does the First Amendment extend, and what, exactly, does it cover?

I like this, but I don't much feel like contributing anymore than encouragement at this time. I've read all these opinions, and am finding mine to be unclear at this point. For, to ban these people from protesting in a place otherwise exceptable, simply based on the [i]sensitivity[/i] of the situation, is to dabble with legislation in [i]degrees[/i]. And that's dangerous.

Also, we should probably steer this conversation clear of religious ideas. Or at least, if you must make a statement about them, clarify what they represent. Such as: "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner" -According to basic Christianity. That makes things a lot more clear and helps to avoid problems.

-Justin

[eleanor]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Actually, in that context, we have every right to say we think this shouldn't be allowed, constitutionally we have the right to say we think the first amendment shouldn't allow this kind of harassment. Saying that how we feel about it doesn't matter isn't correct. And who's to say it's bending the constitution? We haven't denied them the right to have their opinion. We're vocally saying that we believe they are violating the privacy of other individuals by protesting at a funeral of all things. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Of course you do. I overstepped my bounds by saying 'most everyone', but to those who say the church isn't protected by the constitution, I remain firm. And I'm saying that the constitution always override any other law; they may be violating privacy, but that's weak compared to the power of the first amendment. The constitution may not be absolute, but it holds precedence any other separate federal or state law. People will confuse their feeling with justice, which is never supposed to happen. [/font]


[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]No one is saying they can't protest, we're saying that in a non-public setting, which is what a funeral is, they should be required to keep their distance, even if that distance is just outside the funeral grounds. Even protesting the government is the same, since when were they allowed to go inside the white house? They protest outside and are required to keep a reasonable distance. Honestly how hard is this concept for people to grasp here? [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I didn't read anything about it, but were the Westboro Baptists violating the ban on distance? Was the funeral public? As far as I know, it is not protected by the Respect of America's Fallen Heroes Act, as it was no under control of the National Cemetary Administration. If it was, the maximum fee is $100,000, not $10.8 million.

"Alarmed by Westboro protests, at least 22 states have proposed or enacted laws to limit the rights of protesters at funerals. Only months after Matthew Snyder's death, Maryland passed a law prohibiting targeted picketing within 300 feet of a funeral, burial, memorial service or funeral procession."

Doesn't that imply that states never had rules against this sort of stuff before? What are the specifications of your mentioned ban? Did it include funerals?[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Go and read the ban, it's not against protesting it's against doing so on the actual property or within 300 feet of said property. The idiots can protest all they want, they just have to keep their distance like you have to do at any protest regardless of the reason. :animesigh We have the same law here in Utah, they can protest they just can't get in your face on the funeral grounds to do so. If the president is protected from someone walking right into his office, then why the hell should the rest of the public be denied the same treatment?[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I searched the thread and I didn't find a link to the ban specifics. If you could provide one (I might have missed it), I'd gladly read it.

As a personal note, I'm arguing for the sake of showing two sides. My heart is not in everything I say, but I'm also not going to act like the Westboro Baptist Church has no strength whatsoever in their appeal. They do, and that's undeniable. Of course the 1st Amendment has limitations of obscene language, but it usually pertains of things of a pornographic nature.[/font]

[James]

[color=#606060]On the subject of the constitution...I really can't comment. I don't know exactly what the constitutional ramifications are.

What I can say is that I think States have the right to legislate the bounds of public protests to some degree. It would be fine, I think, to limit protests to public places only (i.e. not private residences) and I think it would be fair to place distance restrictions under certain circumstances (i.e. a certain distance from a funeral procession for instance).

Ultimately it's a tough question. And I don't believe that you can legislate everything to a fine degree; over-regulation can be just as bad as having no regulations at all.

My feeling is that this comes down to common decency. No matter what your beliefs, it is inappropriate to protest at someone's funeral pure and simple. You can not claim to have any kind of moral authority when you are more than happy to insult the dignity of a fallen soldier - and in particular, when you are happy to disrupt the grieving of an entire family. This is really unforgivable and it's also pretty ironic, given the message of the protesters.

In actual fact I don't believe that this situation has anything to do with homosexuality. It relates to protesting in general - when is it appropriate to voice an opinion, especially when that opinion is obviously inflammatory?

If I were against a political party and a member of that party died...would I stand outside their funeral holding political slogans up in the air? Of course not. At best, it's poor taste. At worst, it completely negates any messages I might be trying to convey; it would take any legitimacy out of my meaning and make me look like a complete nut.

So in this case, I feel that the father was right to sue. And I'm glad he won.

It is just a shame that such action is even needed. I never cease to be surprised at the depths to which people will go, especially when peddling an ostensibly moral message (which is, underneath, a message driven largely by ignorance and intolerance).[/color]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]My understanding is that this group was charged for emotional damages for the pain they caused the family who was simply burying their son. The jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for emotional distress. They were not charged for violating any standing ban about how they could protest at the funeral.

However the fight is now over whether or not having a law to restrict the manner in which protests are done is unconstitutional or not. Also, since when did a family's funeral become a public event? I've always understood that like one's home, funeral services for a family was considered a private matter.

The law in Utah that Aaryanna was talking about ended up enacted due to issues with members from different gangs showing up at funerals to heckle people just for the fun of it. They didn't even know the person or family who had died, so the requirement to keep their distance was considered a reasonable limit as far as being at a funeral goes.

We have similar laws about picketing the government, abortion clinics, the homes of those who work in such places. In each of those, so long as a reasonable distance is kept the protests are allowed, so I really do not see how having similar space for the families having a funeral would be unconstitutional.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[The Spectacular Professor]

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

They didn't. Basically what I get from this is that Phelps is a spiteful, attention-starved bastard who enjoys being on the news so much that he decided to start a business telling God who God should hate.

These guys are pure malice-type evil. I was watching the news the other day. They had interviews with the family. Their 7-and-under CHILDREN were using the word "(derogatory gay term starting with f because the censor won't let me say it.)" It sickens me to see people this foolish not only reproduce, but be allowed to raise children. I mean, compared to this, Britney and K-fed's children are gonna turn out like Jesus.

In closing, I'm glad I don't attend many military funerals, because if they popped up, there would be more than one nonbreathing attendee.

[G/S/B Master]

Fred Phelps: Greatest IRL troll in the world.

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='G/S/B Master']Fred Phelps: Greatest IRL troll in the world.[/QUOTE]If I understand the concept of a troll correctly... I have to agree. Everything I have read on this group indicates that instead of protesting the government directly, they look for the manner that will get the most attention instead. It's a sad day when a family can't mourn the passing of a loved one in peace.

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='G/S/B Master']Fred Phelps: Greatest IRL troll in the world.[/QUOTE]

Above quote deserves a meme.

[IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/1869429654_8d7f15e4d5.jpg?v=0[/IMG]

Thank you, Flickr.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]We have similar laws about picketing the government, abortion clinics, the homes of those who work in such places. In each of those, so long as a reasonable distance is kept the protests are allowed, so I really do not see how having similar space for the families having a funeral would be unconstitutional.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]That's my standing as far as this goes. Even more so since looking into this particular group shows that they pick the most shocking and visible means possible to get their message out. Freedom of speech cannot equate to absolute rights to get in someone's face at any time. They are hiding behind that like cowards and using it as a tool to further their hate messages.

It's ironic really, in the end the laws requiring them to stay back like one has to at any protest is more designed for their safety than anything else. People are getting more than just a little angry over their tactics. This isn't the first time the law has had to put restrictions in place to keep protests from getting out of hand on both sides.

[eleanor]

[quote name='SunfallE'][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]

The law in Utah that Aaryanna was talking about ended up enacted due to issues with members from different gangs showing up at funerals to heckle people just for the fun of it. They didn't even know the person or family who had died, so the requirement to keep their distance was considered a reasonable limit as far as being at a funeral goes.

We have similar laws about picketing the government, abortion clinics, the homes of those who work in such places. In each of those, so long as a reasonable distance is kept the protests are allowed, so I really do not see how having similar space for the families having a funeral would be unconstitutional.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I'm assuming that this law is not federal then, and it can't really be applied to this case. I support this kind of legislation, to an extent, but unfortunately it can't be used against the Westboro Baptist Church. [/font]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][quote name='Lunox;796238][font="trebuchet ms"] I searched the thread and I didn't find a link to the ban specifics. If you could provide one (I might have missed it), I'd gladly read it. [/font][/QUOTE]I just searched using google for protest at funeral. I read through several articles which stated that different states were considering the ban/limit on protests at funerals and all of them were along the lines of keeping a distance of 300-500 feet. Some states want to include a time limit as well. This is one of the articles I read: [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900927.html"][U]Bans[/U][/URL][quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"'] I'm assuming that this law is not federal then, and it can't really be applied to this case. I support this kind of legislation, to an extent, but unfortunately it can't be used against the Westboro Baptist Church. [/font][/quote]As far as I know the law in Utah is not federal, however, when the group announced plans to do one of their demonstrations at a funeral here, they were informed that they would be required to abide by it. Their response was to not come at all.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Circ]

[quote name='Lunox']

[font="trebuchet ms"] I didn't read anything about it, but were the Westboro Baptists violating the ban on distance? Was the funeral public? As far as I know, it is not protected by the Respect of America's Fallen Heroes Act, as it was no under control of the National Cemetary Administration. If it was, the maximum fee is $100,000, not $10.8 million. [/font][/QUOTE]

For the most part, you seem to be missing a key element here: this was a [i]civil[/i], not criminal lawsuit, which carries a whole different set of issues. They were not issued a fine; those were punitive damage for the harm they did to the family.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Circéus']For the most part, you seem to be missing a key element here: this was a [i]civil[/i], not criminal lawsuit, which carries a whole different set of issues. They were not issued a fine; those were punitive damage for the harm they did to the family.[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I concede, but $10.9 million is still overkill. What does someone do when they only have $1 million in assets? [/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] I concede, but $10.9 million is still overkill. What does someone do when they only have $1 million in assets? [/font][/QUOTE]

That's the beauty of it. These jerks are basically screwed. Unfortunately, I doubt that will stop them.

[TheShinje]

Westboro Baptist "Church" does not reflect Christianity, it is a heretical cult that cherry-picks scripture that conforms with it's perverted worldview and conveniently ignores those that don't.

I'm glad that Westboro is getting it's just desserts. Their message of hate just causes more grief and agony for those who have lost loved ones in the Iraq war. It's not what Jesus would do, it's what a backward, in-bred, fanatically self-obsessed cult would do.

I'm still waiting for the declaration that they will catch the next comet to Jupiter, have tea with Xenu, and order that the world worships the golden calf again. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, i just hope that their ability to tarnish the church with their untruths is at least severely disabled.

[Retribution]

[font=Arial]While initially I agree with the ban, closer inspection leads me to oppose it in some respect.

If they are protesting off private property, I thoroughly oppose a ban against protest within a certain distance of said area. Not only does it have far-reaching constitutionality rammifications, it sets a dangerous precedent for future protests, and I think that's the thing we all need to keep in mind. Sure, it is common decency to keep hateful and homophobic protesters away from a fallen soldier's funeral. However this sets a precedent for banning protest from places like outside a court-house or legsilative building, with no better citation than "for the common welfare" or some such thing. And that is truly frightening.

I am not defending the Phelps' position or their despicable acts. But I think it absolutely paramount that we also consider the future legal precedent this sets.[/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I am not defending the Phelps' position or their despicable acts. But I think it absolutely paramount that we also consider the future legal precedent this sets.[/font][/QUOTE]

Here's an easy solution. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this fall under personal attacks or harassment or something? They're targeting soldiers on a matter totally unrelated to the war in order to garner attention. That doesn't sound like a legitimate protest to me.

I really think the Phelps should stop abusing their freedom of speech, which is an often overused way of justifying harassment, and get better acquainted with the right to remain silent.

[vegeta rocker]

I dont think the amount was overkill, he bankrupted them so they can't do this to someone else.

Besides what money he does get was for charity, the only way he could afford to take them to church was to ask for donations to make them pay for their disrespect.

As for the ramifications for other protesting, i think it may end up having a negative influence on protests but in the long run if the next family can bury their son in peace it is worth it.