So its illegal to protest military funerals... [Archive]

maestro55

May 25, 2006, 09:44 AM

While I have always been a strong supporter of first admendment rights, and in some ways it is dangerous to begin limiting those rights, the case at hand I will have to agree with congress. While when I die, I don't want a service, in fact I would rather my body be thrown in the ground somewhere, left to help feed mother nature. However, for those that choose to have a service, the family (and the dead) deserve the respect to have a peaceful service without protesters. I mean, the first admendment doesn't protect from me yelling fire in a crowded cinema (I wouldn't do that if it did), doing that causes panic and un-rest. Protesting a funeral service (while doesn't cause panic, could be said to cause un-rest) for ANYONE is not right.

I never thought I would disagree with the ACLU and agree with Congress... but I will have to agree here. On the otherhand, it makes me wonder how many times in the future they will claim that the protesting causes disruption or disrespect, etc. In Crawford they banned protesting outside Bush's ranch, saying that protesters were interfering with residents in that area. In this case, I declared laws keeping protesters from that area to be against the first admendment. So I don't usually agree with any laws restricting protesters (if I agree with them or not). However, I guess even me, very far on the left, can see the sanctity of a funeral service, and that is something that no one should break.

XNine

May 25, 2006, 09:50 AM

Well, it's a step. These assholes that go to these funerals and protest ought to get tear gassed and beaten down. **** "freedom of speach" when it's does nothing but attacking the people who are dead and those who are mourning them.

Had my girlfriend's father's funeral been protested, there would have been a lot of psycho-Christian blood spilled.

dornoforpyros

May 25, 2006, 09:55 AM

what a world we live in wear a law like this needs to be made in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the law, but the fact that a law is needed at all is disgusting.

iGary

May 25, 2006, 10:00 AM

Mike Teezie

May 25, 2006, 10:06 AM

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/05/25/military.funerals.ap/story.funeral.signs.ap.jpg

Holy **** - this person thinks this is Christianity? "Thank God for IEDs?"

You know, my brother is in the military. Two kids I grew up with have died in Iraq. I can honestly say I don't know what I would do to this type of person if they showed up at a funeral I was at.

It makes me sick.

FFTT

May 25, 2006, 10:08 AM

As far as I'm concerned, that guy should be arrested for hate crimes
and undergo a complete psych evaluation.

iGary

May 25, 2006, 10:09 AM

As far as I'm concerned, that guy should be arrested for hate crimes
and undergo a complete psych evaluation.

Evaluation?

None needed.

Thomas Veil

May 25, 2006, 10:35 AM

What we really need is a law authorizing the psychiatric community to show up en masse, throw a large butterfly net around these people, and haul them off.

Seriously.

But I'll settle for this in the meantime.

IJ Reilly

May 25, 2006, 10:36 AM

what a world we live in wear a law like this needs to be made in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the law, but the fact that a law is needed at all is disgusting.

We don't. This law was passed in response to one incident. Once again, Congress is spending its precious legislative time dealing with the issues that really matter.

XNine

May 25, 2006, 10:38 AM

We don't. This law was passed in response to one incident. Once again, Congress is spending its precious legislative time dealing with the issues that really matter.

This hasn't occurred only one time, this has occurred DOZENS of times.

maestro55

May 25, 2006, 10:40 AM

Holy **** - this person thinks this is Christianity? "Thank God for IEDs?"

I just hope this is a mesage to those Christians (I am not saying all think like this, I am saying that I know some at my school who do, and I suspect there are others) who tend to generalize all Muslims as terrorists, classifying the entire culture and religious group. There are radicals on all sides, and not all Christians "Thank God For IEDs" just like not all Muslims hate Christians/Americans (many are indeed Americans).

I am not involved with either religion, I just know that there is so much hate between all these different religious groups and it is sad for me to see.

IJ Reilly

May 25, 2006, 10:45 AM

This hasn't occurred only one time, this has occurred DOZENS of times.

I was only aware of the one time, by this one group of religious nuts. Either way, passing a law to explicitly target the First Amendment rights of one group is a dangerous business.

aquajet

May 25, 2006, 11:21 AM

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.

I actually find myself in agreement with Fred for once.

All religious fundamentalist lunacy aside, down to brass tacks, a specific group's rights are being attacked for the simple reason that we don't like how they think. This is wrong. We all have the right to speak out against things we don't like, and the WBC is no exception. Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't protect us from getting our feelings hurt.

It'll be interesting to see if the WBC decides to challenge this law after Bush signs it.

Thanatoast

May 25, 2006, 12:00 PM

I'm gonna have to say that this law is a bad idea. Once they pass it for one circumstance, why not for any other? We've already seen our executive branch push the law past the limits of common sense. With such an emotionally charged subject, I think the constitution needs to be our guide, here.

Oh, and if they showed up at a funeral I was at, there would be a beat down. That's the reciprocal of allowing them to protest. Their rights are protected, but not their physical safety. Any moron who chants "God hates fags" at a funeral in protest should expect to get their ass handed to them.

leekohler

May 25, 2006, 12:15 PM

I actually find myself in agreement with Fred for once.

All religious fundamentalist lunacy aside, down to brass tacks, a specific group's rights are being attacked for the simple reason that we don't like how they think. This is wrong. We all have the right to speak out against things we don't like, and the WBC is no exception. Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't protect us from getting our feelings hurt.

It'll be interesting to see if the WBC decides to challenge this law after Bush signs it.

I agree. I can't agree with this law, no matter how hideous those people are.

At the same time, I can't help but think there should be some sort of stipulation. Maybe along the lines of- go ahead and protest the funeral, but if you get the crap beat out of you, you have no legal recourse. :)

FFTT

May 25, 2006, 12:15 PM

If you or I showed up at a Synagogue or a Mosque with degrading signs
blaming them for all the worlds problems, they would arrest us immediately under hate crime statutes.

It is also illegal to promote discrimination on federal or state property or in the workplace.

pseudobrit

May 25, 2006, 04:04 PM

If you or I showed up at a Synagogue or a Mosque with degrading signs
blaming them for all the worlds problems, they would arrest us immediately under hate crime statutes.

What hate crime is being committed in this theoretical instance? If they picketed outside a place of worship on public property there's no law against that.

It is also illegal to promote discrimination on federal or state property or in the workplace.

While making a racist comment might cost you your job or land you in civil court (if part of a deeper pattern of discrimination against employees), I've never heard of anyone going to jail because they were openly bigoted and discriminatory.

I'd like to see some proof of these claims.

XNine

May 25, 2006, 04:42 PM

What hate crime is being committed in this theoretical instance? If they picketed outside a place of worship on public property there's no law against that.

While making a racist comment might cost you your job or land you in civil court (if part of a deeper pattern of discrimination against employees), I've never heard of anyone going to jail because they were openly bigoted and discriminatory.

I'd like to see some proof of these claims.

The mere fact that they state that GOD HATES FAGS, GOD IS YOUR ENEMY, FAGS CAUSED THE WAR, etc etc. is bigoted and discrimenatory and is NOT protected under the first amendment. These ARE hatecrimes by definition. Emailing a gay person and calling them names is a hate crime, why shouldn't it be a hate crime to stand, at a MILITARY FUNERAL, protesting and shouting and having signs defaming gays be any different? Especially when the funeral has nothing to do with gay people in the first place.

I mean, biker's had to get involved at several funerals to protect the families and friends attending the funerals from these freaks. Why? Because their logic is allowing gays to live=against God=God's wrath=Iraq war=soldier's death= must bash and kill gays and kick American flags and stand around shouting ******** and have written signs that say the same.

Sorry, but this law is needed for a reason. It's not a one-time, or two-time, or even a twelve-time occurence. It happens EVERY SINGLE DAY now.

iGary

May 25, 2006, 04:46 PM

I agree. I can't agree with this law, no matter how hideous those people are.

At the same time, I can't help but think there should be some sort of stipulation. Maybe along the lines of- go ahead and protest the funeral, but if you get the crap beat out of you, you have no legal recourse. :)

At a minimum it's an invasion of privacy, which is constitutionally protected. That's what will stand up in court, and I agree.

aquajet

May 25, 2006, 05:12 PM

The mere fact that they state that GOD HATES FAGS, GOD IS YOUR ENEMY, FAGS CAUSED THE WAR, etc etc. is bigoted and discrimenatory and is NOT protected under the first amendment. These ARE hatecrimes by definition.

If this is true, then who gets to decide what's bigoted and discriminatory and what's not?

Sayhey

May 25, 2006, 05:25 PM

First Amendment rights are not absolute. None of our constitutional rights are. I haven't seen the law in question, but what would bother me is if it outlaws the CONTENT of what these protests are about. As reprehensible as these folks are, it is dangerous to move in the direction of outlawing speech because we don't like it. I see no problem with restricting noise levels and limiting protest to a reasonable distance from funeral sites, just as is done around hospitals throughout the country, but if we stop these idiots from voicing their stupid ideas - just because they are idiots - we are making a major mistake.

Dont Hurt Me

May 25, 2006, 05:28 PM

If you want to protest a funeral the best one i can think off is the suicidal bomber, killing anyone who happens to be near . Thats where we should protest.

aquajet

May 25, 2006, 05:43 PM

iGary

May 25, 2006, 05:46 PM

That's an interesting scenario to ponder. If I were to gather a bunch of people, go to a military funeral and hold up signs that say things like "God bless the USA" and "God bless American soldiers," do you think we'd be arrested?

If they were yelling and screaming it at high volume right near the burial plot, then yes, I think people would have a problem with it, though they would probably have a higher tolerance for it.

XNine

May 25, 2006, 05:57 PM

That's an interesting scenario to ponder. If I were to gather a bunch of people, go to a military funeral and hold up signs that say things like "God bless the USA" and "God bless American soldiers," do you think we'd be arrested?

That's comparing apples to oranges. It's an unfair comparison: giving praise and blessing something or to condemn and villfy something. Two totally different scenarios there.

iGary

May 25, 2006, 06:00 PM

That's comparing apples to oranges. It's an unfair comparison: giving praise and blessing something or to condemn and villfy something. Two totally different scenarios there.

Yeah, but the point is, specch is speech. My issue is one of privacy.

mactastic

May 25, 2006, 06:04 PM

aquajet

May 25, 2006, 06:05 PM

That's comparing apples to oranges. It's an unfair comparison: giving praise and blessing something or to condemn and villfy something. Two totally different scenarios there.

If a mainstream church group decided to "picket" the funeral of a WBC parishioner, holding signs that say "God Bless America," would it still be an unfair comparison?

aquajet

May 25, 2006, 06:07 PM

After all, expressing your love for the sound of a Harley is free speech too...

With the proper pipes, yes. ;)

iGary

May 25, 2006, 06:08 PM

What's a portest? ;)

Seriously though, laws aren't the way to deal with this. I'm sure most towns could rouse a crowd of bikers when Phelps comes to town. After all, expressing your love for the sound of a Harley is free speech too...

I know, Christ my typing is just horrible lately. I think it's the fact that I've been churning out like 5,000+ words a day for a month now. Meh.

I don't necessarily think it warrants a law, but if you were going to take the time to write one, don't you think you'd make sure it included all funerals?

I am seriously amazed that someone hasn't attacked/killed/shot Phelps. Having seen him in action many times, he and his group are really disgusting, but generally harmless. Nicer people have gotten shot for less.

I remember the March on Washington in 2000 - 100,000 homos strong. Phelps was on Constitution with his group and a little effeminate blonde guy with a ballerina costume was doing spins in front of them with a sign that said:

"If God hates fags, then why isn't it raining?"

I'll never forget that.

mactastic

May 25, 2006, 06:30 PM

I know, Christ my typing is just horrible lately. I think it's the fact that I've been churning out like 5,000+ words a day for a month now. Meh. Poor guy, and I'm sure sleeping on the couch doesn't help matters...

I don't necessarily think it warrants a law, but if you were going to take the time to write one, don't you think you'd make sure it included all funerals?
Yeah, you're right there, it should be all or none. I'd just prefer none.

pseudobrit

May 25, 2006, 06:59 PM

why shouldn't it be a hate crime to stand, at a MILITARY FUNERAL, protesting and shouting and having signs defaming gays be any different?

Because it's a right specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

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.

If there's no violence and no call to violence, what you have is protected speech.

I hate these scum too, but the Constitution and the interpretation thereof are pretty clear on this stuff. Hell, the SC just threw out the application of RICO for anti-abortion picketers.

blackfox

May 25, 2006, 09:15 PM

pseudobrit

May 25, 2006, 09:33 PM

Just thinking out loud here, but I couldn't help but think about the laws in Germany and Austria (among others) that make certain types of speech or actions (related to the Nazis) a crime.

While these countries obviously have a different scheme of governance than the US, if you are talking about a slippery-slope with regards to personal rights, it seems that it is somewhat possible to strike a balance.

Whether or not that balance can be struck is irrelevant.

Just because certain statutes or ideals are acceptable and functional in other nations doesn't mean we can ignore the Constitution in ours. If you disagree, petition your representatives to redact portions of the First Amendment.

Sayhey

May 25, 2006, 11:09 PM

What's a portest? ;)

Seriously though, laws aren't the way to deal with this. I'm sure most towns could rouse a crowd of bikers when Phelps comes to town. After all, expressing your love for the sound of a Harley is free speech too...

I believe it is the left most part of the ship (facing forward.) ;)

I don't see the problem with rational, and reasonable application of laws to prevent such protest from disturbing funerals. The right to protest does not mean people have to be allowed to shout through bullhorns fifty feet away from people in mourning. It does mean even people like Phelps must have a reasonable place and ability to voice their concerns - no matter how misguided their ideas. If these folks do get too close and disrupt the funeral, I'm afraid I think the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment applies and a good swift kick in the ass is appropriate.

solvs

May 26, 2006, 12:31 AM

I see no problem with restricting noise levels and limiting protest to a reasonable distance from funeral sites, just as is done around hospitals throughout the country, but if we stop these idiots from voicing their stupid ideas - just because they are idiots - we are making a major mistake.
Agreed. It isn't the content, it's the approach. It could be considered trespassing, or at least disturbing the peace. It's a slippery slope, but your rights end where mine begin. And people should be able to mourn in peace. I am against the war, but you'd never see me protesting a soldiers funeral. Even if I didn't know any soldiers.

You just don't protest at a funeral.

FFTT

May 26, 2006, 12:46 AM

One problem is that this legislation needs to cover the church, the funeral home and the cemetery.

It might be easier to cover these areas under the same laws that cover hospital zones, but there may be a problem with the church property.

In this particular case, some local jurisdictions could enforce public nuisance
laws or refuse a permit.

Private cemeteries could charge him with trespassing and military cemetaries could enforce anti-discrimination guidlines or simply deny
access for security reasons.

OR.......

They could just accidentally fire a warning shot during the 21 gun salute

OOPS! :D

IJ Reilly

May 26, 2006, 10:22 AM

You just don't protest at a funeral.

Some people do. Incredibly stupid ones. But last I checked, it wasn't against the law to be incredibly stupid.

pseudobrit

May 26, 2006, 03:54 PM

Private cemeteries could charge him with trespassing and military cemetaries could enforce anti-discrimination guidlines or simply deny
access for security reasons.

AFAIK, Phelps and his nutbag posse are careful to confine their protests to public areas, not private property. There is nothing illegal about these actions.

What I would hate to see happen is Phelps be arrested and charged with violation of this law and for him to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Because he'd win. And why would you hand Freddy a surefire legal victory over the United States and, seemingly, common decency? The courts would have no choice but to uphold their right to protest, and in doing so would appear to validate WBC's message.

mactastic

May 26, 2006, 04:00 PM

AFAIK, Phelps and his nutbag posse are careful to confine their protests to public areas, not private property. There is nothing illegal about these actions.

What I would hate to see happen is Phelps be arrested and charged with violation of this law and for him to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Because he'd win. And why would you hand Freddy a surefire legal victory over the United States and, seemingly, common decency? The courts would have no choice but to uphold their right to protest, and in doing so would appear to validate WBC's message.
That's how the wad of puke makes his living, by deliberatly provoking situations where he can sue, and then collecting the taxpayer's money.

solvs

May 26, 2006, 09:42 PM

Some people do. Incredibly stupid ones. But last I checked, it wasn't against the law to be incredibly stupid.
No, but disturbing the peace is. I'd say a graveyard is pretty much the definition of peace. As long as they stay on public property and don't disturb the proceedings, I guess we can't say anything though. But they want to get attention, they want to get arrested, and they're hoping someone does slip up and get violent, because then they get even more attention and can sue. Of course some politicians are quick to enact laws taking away certain freedoms, but don't people have the right to grieve in peace?

As I said, your rights end where mine begin.

IJ Reilly

May 27, 2006, 12:07 AM

No, but disturbing the peace is. I'd say a graveyard is pretty much the definition of peace. As long as they stay on public property and don't disturb the proceedings, I guess we can't say anything though. But they want to get attention, they want to get arrested, and they're hoping someone does slip up and get violent, because then they get even more attention and can sue. Of course some politicians are quick to enact laws taking away certain freedoms, but don't people have the right to grieve in peace?

As I said, your rights end where mine begin.

Fortunately or otherwise, if the right to grieve in peace was considered by the Founders as one to include in the Bill of Rights, it didn't make the cut.

solvs

May 27, 2006, 03:28 PM

Fortunately or otherwise, if the right to grieve in peace was considered by the Founders as one to include in the Bill of Rights, it didn't make the cut.
There are a lot of things that aren't in the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution. You don't think people have the right to grieve in peace? I don't care if they were soldiers, or gay, or evil dictators... you don't protest at a funeral.

Didn't say I had a problem with protesting them in general, or any protest for that matter, just not at the funeral.

calebjohnston

May 27, 2006, 03:30 PM

There are certain decencies and respect that should be protected.

If that lunatic showed up at a funeral for one of my loved ones, I'd probably shoot him.

Good man.

aquajet

May 27, 2006, 05:15 PM

Shooting someone because we don't like their opinions, are we? And here I thought the WBC was mad...

solvs

May 27, 2006, 05:34 PM

Shooting someone because we don't like their opinions, are we?
I don't like that either. Not that I wouldn't blame people for getting angry, but if they did do anything, like hit the protesters or even threaten them with violence, I don't see how that would be any better. You'd just be stooping to their level. They bait people for a reason.

FFTT

May 27, 2006, 08:25 PM

No I'd freeking shoot him! :cool:

It might only be a tranqualizer dart, but I'd drop his ass.

IJ Reilly

May 27, 2006, 11:54 PM

There are a lot of things that aren't in the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution. You don't think people have the right to grieve in peace? I don't care if they were soldiers, or gay, or evil dictators... you don't protest at a funeral.

Didn't say I had a problem with protesting them in general, or any protest for that matter, just not at the funeral.

There are a lot of "things" that aren't in the Bill of Rights, and those things are not called rights, virtually by definition. So even if you and I think they are good ideas, if they come in conflict with those things which are explicitly called out in the Bill of Rights, the other things are trumped.

blackfox

May 28, 2006, 03:37 AM

You know, a tangental thing to mention here, though it has no direct bearing on this specific issue - is the gradual substitution of the private-sector for the public-sphere.

We increasingly have more private, gated communities and strictly-zoned suburbs (with their own private contracts with citizenry), we have malls (witht their own laws and security) substituting for public squares, we have private health clubs substituting for parks and playgrounds. In a thousand mundane ways, many americans have given up their public rights to live in a corporate bubble (with it's own rules).

Most people willingly put up with restrictions in the corporate sector that they would not in the public-sphere. Yet the corporate sphere is growing - even Universities, where we are supposed to learn to think - are being redifined by corporations.

Now, this is not to say that corporations are inherently bad, or that our rights as free citizens are immediately in peril - but it is interesting to think that our loss of rights may one day come from a direction we would not normally expect - constitution be damned, hell, it may not even be challenged so much as made practically irrelevant.

While the US is obviously not Singapore, it is useful to look at Singapore and speculate on where our priorities might lead us. It is also important to remember that who knows what mischeivous systems of governance may pop up - Fascism and Communism didn't even exist a Century ago.

Sorry for the tangent...perhaps it will contribute to the discussion, perhaps not.

XNine

May 28, 2006, 12:54 PM

What disturbs me is that so many people in here are willing to fight for bills and statues and amendments but no one gives a **** about decency. No one cares that their fellow man just bit the dust for something he may not have even wanted to go do, but did because his country told him to. No one cares that these psychotic religious nuts are bringing all of these groups into one category and dehumanizing them to forward their babbling hate messages.

Law is law, but common respect for your fellow planet-sharing people needs to be upheld somewhere.

Sayhey

May 28, 2006, 02:22 PM

solvs

May 28, 2006, 06:23 PM

What disturbs me is that so many people in here are willing to fight for bills and statues and amendments but no one gives a **** about decency.
Apparently you missed my posts. But it isn't about decency, it is about rights. You have the right to protest all you want. I just think people have the right to grieve in peace. You don't get to yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't block ambulances by protesting in front of emergency rooms, or fire engines, and you shouldn't be able to disturb a funeral proceeding. Not AT the funeral. You want to protest, that's fine, just not where people are grieving.

You can't regulate decency, but people should have the right to grieve in peace.

Dont Hurt Me

May 28, 2006, 06:40 PM

Apparently you missed my posts. But it isn't about decency, it is about rights. You have the right to protest all you want. I just think people have the right to grieve in peace. You don't get to yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't block ambulances by protesting in front of emergency rooms, or fire engines, and you shouldn't be able to disturb a funeral proceeding. Not AT the funeral. You want to protest, that's fine, just not where people are grieving.

You can't regulate decency, but people should have the right to grieve in peace.You cant regulate decency but govt will try because of those who have to have it spelled out for them and with another law goes a little more freedom, seems we are doomed by law. Amazing they stopped this pretty fast but cant seem to fix the mexican invasion or find those WMDs. Our Govt is full of _ _ _ _.

IJ Reilly

May 28, 2006, 07:04 PM

You can't regulate decency, but people should have the right to grieve in peace.

Good luck trying to figure out where this "right" begins and the rights protected by the First Amendment leave off. Historically, the Supreme Court has been very circumspect when it comes to curtailing rights to speech, press, assembly and expression. One of my fears in this matter is that the law will be appealed through the courts, giving Fred Foonbrain a perfect opportunity to play the persecuted martyr on a national stage. He'll probably win, too, which will lead to much gloating, and even more idiotic protests.

solvs

May 28, 2006, 08:08 PM

Good luck trying to figure out where this "right" begins and the rights protected by the First Amendment leave off.
I realize that, and I realize the implications, and I put up with a lot of stuff I can't stand in the name of rights, but this one really bothers me. Couldn't he just be ordered to stay a certain distance away? Private property and all. I mean, you can't crash a wedding either, you'd think it would be the same principle.

It's a slippery slope, I'll give you that, but privacy has to play a part in this somehow.

Sayhey

May 28, 2006, 08:32 PM

Couldn't he just be ordered to stay a certain distance away? Private property and all. I mean, you can't crash a wedding either, you'd think it would be the same principle.

Absolutely, and he probably is ordered to stay a certain distance away. There is NOTHING in the First Amendment that allows them to demonstrate wherever they want or however they want. REASONABLE restrictions on the right to free speech and assembly are made all of the time. I'm willing to bet that in every instance these fools have been told they can't disrupt the funeral through the use of amplified sound and that they must stay a certain distance away. Take it from someone who has organized many demonstrations - that is how it works. The problem is that these folks are so obnoxious that they will be noticed no matter where they demonstrate. The camera will follow them like a train wreck.

Once again I have to say, I don't know the details of this new law, but as long as we are not making outrageous limitations on the right to assemble, especially if those limitations are based on the content of speech, most courts will accept these kinds of laws.

solvs

May 28, 2006, 10:23 PM

The camera will follow them like a train wreck.
Let them. As long as they don't disturb the mourners during the funeral at the grave site. This should already be protected under disturbing the peace and harassment laws. The same could be said at a funeral for a homosexual or an abortion clinic. Same principle.

Dont Hurt Me

May 29, 2006, 07:37 AM

Im sure there has to be local ordinance against this or at least the local sheriff could get them for disturbing the peace. This Law isnt needed, whats needed is a sheriff with some balls were these folks go. I agree with solvs.

mactastic

May 29, 2006, 09:42 AM

Let them. As long as they don't disturb the mourners during the funeral at the grave site. This should already be protected under disturbing the peace and harassment laws. The same could be said at a funeral for a homosexual or an abortion clinic. Same principle.
I'd prefer not to see my right to protest at King George's funeral taken away thanks. ;)

Seriously though, there is nothing you can do to stop these guys, and the last thing you should do is pay any attention to them - and yes I know that's a tall order. Not even sure if I could do it myself, but in a perfect world no one would pay Fred Phelps one bit of attention.

Phelps is a lawyer, he's studied far more than you or I about constitutional rights and the limits of his speech, and like Sayhey says he's got the knowledge of the technical aspects of protesting. He's done literally thousands of these things, and he knows exactly how far he can push looking for someone somewhere to overreact and give him a reason to sue for damages. He knows the constitution and his rights under it. And he exploits that knowledge for money.

Which is why the only things you can do are things like the bikers organizing to provide cover. And even then you have to be super disciplined so that you can ignore the taunts and not get violent yourself, or you'll be slapped with an assault charge and a lawsuit.

Creating laws that Phelps can fight just feeds his machine. Starve that beast.

leekohler

May 29, 2006, 10:53 AM

I'd prefer not to see my right to protest at King George's funeral taken away thanks. ;)

Seriously though, there is nothing you can do to stop these guys, and the last thing you should do is pay any attention to them - and yes I know that's a tall order. Not even sure if I could do it myself, but in a perfect world no one would pay Fred Phelps one bit of attention.

Phelps is a lawyer, he's studied far more than you or I about constitutional rights and the limits of his speech, and like Sayhey says he's got the knowledge of the technical aspects of protesting. He's done literally thousands of these things, and he knows exactly how far he can push looking for someone somewhere to overreact and give him a reason to sue for damages. He knows the constitution and his rights under it. And he exploits that knowledge for money.

Which is why the only things you can do are things like the bikers organizing to provide cover. And even then you have to be super disciplined so that you can ignore the taunts and not get violent yourself, or you'll be slapped with an assault charge and a lawsuit.

Creating laws that Phelps can fight just feeds his machine. Starve that beast.

I'd still like a law saying that Phelps can protest all he likes as long as my fist can connect with his face. :)

FFTT

May 29, 2006, 12:17 PM

I still say dart the SOB where ever he shows up. :D

solvs

May 29, 2006, 08:38 PM

I'd prefer not to see my right to protest at King George's funeral taken away thanks. ;)
Actually, as much as I hate the guy, I don't think you should. He'd already be dead. Let his friends and family mourn in peace.

Not saying you shouldn't dance and let your distaste for the man be known. To the dead, we only owe truth. But you probably shouldn't be dancing on the grave while others are mourning. Just my feeling on the matter. On the other hand, Phelps and his ilk protested outside Arlington while the President spoke. I don't like it (well, except for the while the President spoke part, that's kinda funny), but as long as they weren't disturbing a funeral proceeding while it was going on at the funeral site itself or blocking traffic, I guess that would still be legal. Stupid, but legal. And at least there weren't any hippies there, because that would have been stupid as well. Iraq isn't the soldiers' faults.

XNine

May 29, 2006, 09:09 PM

Apparently you missed my posts. But it isn't about decency, it is about rights.

No, I didn't miss your posts, but I also didn't say "EVERYONE" either. ;)

Sorry guys, but I agree 100% with this law. IF they didn't do this law, then I would encourage families of fallen soldiers to carry guns to the funerals to start blasting the protesters. These are the same people that believe in bombing abortion clinics, that the Jews are the cause of WWII and their annihilation was nothing of much importance, and was warranted. They are no better than nazi's.

I don't care if they protest, but NOT AT THE FUNERAL.

Iraq isn't the soldiers' faults.

No war is the soldier's fault. It's all politicians, every time.

aquajet

May 30, 2006, 02:34 PM

Sorry guys, but I agree 100% with this law.

Even though it's limited to military funerals?

solvs

May 30, 2006, 10:35 PM

Even though it's limited to military funerals?
That part is stupid. What's good for the goose and all. Should be the same for any funeral. Including those of homosexuals protested by the same type of groups. Still harassment.

XNine

May 31, 2006, 09:32 AM

Even though it's limited to military funerals?

Yeah, and here's why: I'm hoping these people are so stupid they won't try to protest any other funerals. It's obvious their main goal was to protest military funerals.

On the grand scale, no it should be a law that protects all funerals, but for now, it's good enough to protect people from the stupidity of these extremist psychos.