Obama Signs Law Limiting Westboro-Style Funeral Demonstrations

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Aug 9, 2012.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    For those of you who think I never criticize Obama, here's one for ya. This is flat out wrong. I cannot support this. I see the ACLU going after this one, and it being struck down in court.

    http://www.advocate.com/politics/mi...imiting-westboro-style-funeral-demonstrations
     
  2. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    He has every right to do that as commander in chief of the military.



    Military funerals are military installations not public property and I applaud him for doing it.
     
  3. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
  4. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    It's bad precedent, Peace. I don't like this at all.
     
  5. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #5
    It may look like a precedent but it's not. That law has no power outside a military installation. It would be struck down by the SCOTUS had it been on property that wasn't military.

    At least the way I understand it.

    If they want to stand outside the military property and yell and holler this law won't change that.
     
  6. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    I guess we'll see. Either way, this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
     
  7. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #7
    What leaves a bad taste in my mouth are these phony christians condemning soldiers and sailors for protecting our country.
     
  8. decafjava macrumors 68000

    decafjava

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Geneva
    #8
    Free speech and tolerance must be extended to those you despise or vehemently disagree with or it's worthless.
     
  9. mudslag, Aug 9, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012

    mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #9


    Actually many military funerals don't take place on a military cemetery, this law covers any military funeral, not specific to any location. My guess is this is going to be challenged some what quickly.

    It should be noted, this only limits protesters from coming within 300 feet. Basically one football field in length. We already have similar laws on the books which limits how close you can protest from certain things like buildings, schools, gov offices, health related clinics and such, ect. Though Im not sure how big the buffer zones are and I think they differ from city to city.
     
  10. wackymacky, Aug 9, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2012

    wackymacky macrumors 68000

    wackymacky

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    38°39′20″N 27°13′10″W
    #10
    You haven't really said what leaves a bad taste in your mouth?

    Do you mean your rights of protest (1st amendment) and right of assembly?

    Are you aware of the Westboro Baptist Church who wanted to protest at Army Spc. Dale J. Kridlo's funeral who died last year in Afghanistan?


    The Westboro Baptist Church argument was it was their 1st amendment rights of protest on religious grounds because "the soldiers' deaths are God's way of punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality"

    The protest at his Maryland funeral included signs that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates You."

    The Supreme court said that a protest was lawful but Justice Alito noted that the protesters "brutally attacked" the funeral to attract public attention. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case"


    Although I don't believe in war, the soldiers family were deeply hurt, with his father stating that his son had fought and died for American values like freedom of speech.
     
  11. fox10078 macrumors 6502

    fox10078

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #11
    Honestly, it should be a right to get a calm and peaceful funeral no matter who or what you are, your family deserves that much in such a time.

    People can make their point elsewhere.
     
  12. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #12
    I am not sure how long this will be upheld, but either way I am happy there are groups like the Patriot Guard (link) who have effectively created an anti-WB"C" group.

    Upon request, they attend funerals of military vets and with flags and motorcycles to block the nutcases in westboro from interfering (as best possible) as well as honor the military vets.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #13
    As a Canadian I believe our Supreme Court would consider this to fall within "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

    No one is inhibiting WBC's freedom of speech. There is no right to force people to listen to you and that is what they do.

    I most note, however, that no one gave a damn when they were only doing it to gay people, and that's still the case.

    Every grieving family and loved ones has the right not to have their grief hijacked by these thugs. Not just soldiers.
     
  14. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #14
    I don't think soldiers should have a special protected funeral.

    I am happy for all funerals to be protected from hate rallies and protests though. Practically, funerals don't last long and so any protest can be made before or after it. Antagonizing grieving family has no benefit to society.
     
  15. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #15
    Wrong on both counts. These funerals are not on military property.

    I'm w Lee on this. I hate Westboro, but hate this limitation of free speech even more.
     
  16. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #16
    Which of these two, if any, do you think should be legal?

    1 - Murdering someone
    2 - Murdering someone while shouting about a political issue
     
  17. Jagardn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    #17
    2?

    What does that have to do with the 1st Amendment?
     
  18. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #18
    You think number 2 should be legal?
     
  19. lannisters4life macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney
    #19
    Haha I bet that was a lot easier than you'd imagined

    But I'm surprised people still have such frenzied faith in this mythic idea of free speech. I guess when everyone's an expert on it...
     
  20. AhmedFaisal Guest

    #20
    Have a problem with this also. Government should not interfere with free speech. That's my job as a private citizen to go there, take a big stick and beat the **** out of these bastards. It's government's job to at least try to stop me.... :D
     
  21. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    The PGR are great people.

    I think this should be overturned though - and I'm not sure about the difference between this and the law that was struck down.

    Like was stated, very few military funerals are held on a military installation, but even if they were, WBC would just not be allowed on the installation - it is not public property.
     
  22. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #22
    lol thought it would take a bit of effort to catch someone on it, but an American appeared and made it easy :D


    (we love you guys really)
     
  23. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #23
    Congress has no authority to do this. It will be tossed in court.
     
  24. Tilpots macrumors 601

    Tilpots

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    Carolina Beach, NC
    #24
    This in no way, shape or form affects freedom of speech. It simply provides a brief buffer zone to protect grieving families while they honor their fallen soldier. The WBC wackos are free to spout their filth outside of the buffer zone as much as they would like. Nobody is telling them they can't speak or hold their signs. It's more akin to paparazzi laws than it is to freedom of speech denial. Just as you can't yell "fire" in a crowded place, you now can't provoke grieving families a their most vunerable.

    The other part of this law was also extremely necessary. The victims of the Camp LeJeune water contamination should be cared for and protected by the government they enlisted to defend. I had a chance to meet and talk at length with Jerry Ensminger, the marine who lost his 9 year old daughter decades ago from drinking the poison Base water. He is the very best of the Marines. By himself, he challenged his freinds, countrymen and government and never, ever gave up to fight for his daughter and the millions of others affected by the water. He is a true American hero and I salute him and his efforts.
     
  25. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #25
    It's always a slippery slope when it's something you don't agree with, and never a slippery slope when you do agree.
     

Share This Page