Free speech violation or 'About time'?
- Thread starter Monadnock
- Start date
Henderson
Master Black Belt
Alright...I'll be the first to bite on this one.
I say "About Time". The people have a right to protest wars, and other things they disagree with that our government does. However, tarnishing an already difficult situation like a funeral service is just plain wrong.
I say "About Time". The people have a right to protest wars, and other things they disagree with that our government does. However, tarnishing an already difficult situation like a funeral service is just plain wrong.
green meanie
Master Black Belt
Agreed. I say it's about time too. :asian:
Another vote for the "About Time" camp.
Although it may seem on the outside to the uninitiated that this is a freedom of speech violation, the supreme court has time and time again demonstrated that restrictions placed on "Time, Place and Manner" of protests and other vehicles of speech are not unconstitutional. Such regulations promote peace and order while protecting those who are expressing themselves.
Although I don't agree with their methods and I think that what they say their message is has been lost in the anti-gay/anti-soldier retoric, I still support their Constitutional Right to present their ideas in a peaceful manner.
Even I, a soldier, have mixed feelings about this. Personally I think that it is each individual state's responsibility and power to make such a law within their own borders and that the federal government, although doing the right thing, ultimately took a little more power from the state governments. But that's not the issue.
Final word: Point, Soldiers.
Score: Soldiers - 3, nutjobs from Kansas - 0, bow here, bow to each other.
Although it may seem on the outside to the uninitiated that this is a freedom of speech violation, the supreme court has time and time again demonstrated that restrictions placed on "Time, Place and Manner" of protests and other vehicles of speech are not unconstitutional. Such regulations promote peace and order while protecting those who are expressing themselves.
Although I don't agree with their methods and I think that what they say their message is has been lost in the anti-gay/anti-soldier retoric, I still support their Constitutional Right to present their ideas in a peaceful manner.
Even I, a soldier, have mixed feelings about this. Personally I think that it is each individual state's responsibility and power to make such a law within their own borders and that the federal government, although doing the right thing, ultimately took a little more power from the state governments. But that's not the issue.
Final word: Point, Soldiers.
Score: Soldiers - 3, nutjobs from Kansas - 0, bow here, bow to each other.
About time.
I have 3 cousins fighting in Iraq as we speak, if... GOD FORBID..something happened and some nutjobs showed up in protest..there'd be more funerals to plan. That's all I have to say.
I have 3 cousins fighting in Iraq as we speak, if... GOD FORBID..something happened and some nutjobs showed up in protest..there'd be more funerals to plan. That's all I have to say.
solution #2 - Suprise Gay pride parades at all their important church functions.
Anyways, about time. They can say whatever they want, but protesting funerals is just wrong.
Anyways, about time. They can say whatever they want, but protesting funerals is just wrong.
About time. Free speech is important; but, not stupid free speech, which seems to be the most popular aspect currently.
About time - there are times and places for public protest, but funerals are not one of them. The families have enough to think about without having to deal with people who want to turn a solemn occasion into a circus.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
I am going to say this is a free speech violation.
I harbour no positive feelings for those who would protest at a funeral. I can't even imagine why one would want to do such a thing.
But, this is a further erosion of the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Coming as it does from President Bush, I am not surprise.
And, a $100,000.00 fine? Upon the first challenge before a court, the penalty will get the law thrown out.
I harbour no positive feelings for those who would protest at a funeral. I can't even imagine why one would want to do such a thing.
But, this is a further erosion of the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Coming as it does from President Bush, I am not surprise.
And, a $100,000.00 fine? Upon the first challenge before a court, the penalty will get the law thrown out.
No, peacful assembly is fine, but respect needs to be there. The punishements seem a little extreme, and it's raher sad that such a law is needed. I would have liked to think people would have enough respect to not protest a funeral.
What essentially comes down to a anti-gay protest at a funeral, saying the person died because of tolerance of gays is extremely poor taste, the family of the soldier is going threw a rough enough time, they shouldn't have to deal with that.
What essentially comes down to a anti-gay protest at a funeral, saying the person died because of tolerance of gays is extremely poor taste, the family of the soldier is going threw a rough enough time, they shouldn't have to deal with that.
Brother John
Senior Master
About time!!!!
Long past due as far as I'm concerned.
Your Brother
John
Long past due as far as I'm concerned.
Your Brother
John
People should have the right to protest wherever and whenever. People should also have the right to remove anyone blocking a public road or sidewalk, interfering with their business or creating exessive noise near their home by just about any means possible.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Andrew Green said:
It is unfair to argue from the General to the Specific. To say that such protests should not occur because it is a soldier fighting for a nation that does not prosecut homosexuals does not consider the breadth and depth of the order. What exception will be tolerable, or not tolerable next time.
Are National Cemetaries public spaces?
Don't all citizens have the right to enter them?
Don't all citizens have the right to be on the public roads?
And, then, how exactly does one legislate 'Respect' (Andrew Green, you state, "respect needs to be there"). How does one legislate acceptable actions that demonstrate 'Respect' and not-acceptable actions that demonstrate 'Respect'.
Once we have figured out how to legislate appropriate behavior to demonstrate Respect, how then, do any of us Protest something, anything?
This rule is overbroad and, quite probably, unconstitutional. It leads to an an authoritarion government.
Quietly, peace by peace, we are giving away those things that make us Americans.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
t's raher sad that such a law is needed. I would have liked to think people would have enough respect to not protest a funeral.
I agree completely, and this was running through my mind as I read these posts. Such a law should never have been considered if people were actually acting with any sort of civility and respect.
One thing that occurs to me is that most adults understand general rules of socially acceptable behavior. With children you establish rules of "do this" and "don't do this" and those rules are not just the end of the story but in seeigng examples of what is allowed and what is not, it establishs general character of how one is to act when there is not an actual rule in place saying what you should or shouldn't do. Hopefully by the time a child has become an adult, they have that character established so they don't *need* rules of "do this, don't do that" for issues such as simple curteousy and common deceny in relating to other adults.
Without getting into whether the law is 'consitutional' or not, I'm saddened that our society has gotten to a point that this would be an issue. I think we'd have a lot less laws upopn which we questioned the constitionality if people would simple remember to act like adults
I agree completely, and this was running through my mind as I read these posts. Such a law should never have been considered if people were actually acting with any sort of civility and respect.
One thing that occurs to me is that most adults understand general rules of socially acceptable behavior. With children you establish rules of "do this" and "don't do this" and those rules are not just the end of the story but in seeigng examples of what is allowed and what is not, it establishs general character of how one is to act when there is not an actual rule in place saying what you should or shouldn't do. Hopefully by the time a child has become an adult, they have that character established so they don't *need* rules of "do this, don't do that" for issues such as simple curteousy and common deceny in relating to other adults.
Without getting into whether the law is 'consitutional' or not, I'm saddened that our society has gotten to a point that this would be an issue. I think we'd have a lot less laws upopn which we questioned the constitionality if people would simple remember to act like adults
I'm going to agree with MichaelEdward on this one.
These people who do this make me absoloutely sick. I personally would like to shoot them. But my personal opinon doesn't matter.
I think its safe to say the vast majority of people are sickened by this. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. It seems to me, by doing this, we have helped them. We've made martyrs of them. There is a LOTof anti-bush citizens in the US, and some of them may now lend their ear to these idiots.
One of the great things about being american is you have the right to make yourself look like an ***. We should not deny them their right.
How does the old saying go?
"I may fundamentally disagree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it"
-Voltaire
These people who do this make me absoloutely sick. I personally would like to shoot them. But my personal opinon doesn't matter.
I think its safe to say the vast majority of people are sickened by this. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it. It seems to me, by doing this, we have helped them. We've made martyrs of them. There is a LOTof anti-bush citizens in the US, and some of them may now lend their ear to these idiots.
One of the great things about being american is you have the right to make yourself look like an ***. We should not deny them their right.
How does the old saying go?
"I may fundamentally disagree with what you say, but I'll die for your right to say it"
-Voltaire
michaeledward said:
You can't, however you can legislate against blatant acts of disrespect. A protest of a funeral is wrong, I don't care who's funeral it is or why they died, you don't protest funerals.
And making it a anti-gay thing is IMO, also pushing hate speech. It would be like protesting a school that had a shooting because "That's what they get for letting black students in..."
I also don't see this as a free speech issue, no one is telling them not to protest, they are being told not to do it at a funeral, which really doesn't seem all that unreasonable, public place or not this is a private time for the family and they should not have to deal with people telling them there loved one got what he deserved.
This is a slippery slope fallacy, I will admit to using it. However, this line of thought makes me extremely un-easy.
Many people believe its disprespectful to be against the war at all, because we are not "supporting our soldiers". If we can outlaw this because it is disprespectful, you can begin making a case for almost anything you don't like or that makes you uncomfortable as being disrespectful.
andrewgreen said:
Many people believe its disprespectful to be against the war at all, because we are not "supporting our soldiers". If we can outlaw this because it is disprespectful, you can begin making a case for almost anything you don't like or that makes you uncomfortable as being disrespectful.
Given the the group in question is the only party actively engaging in this particular form of free speech, and that they're really only doing it to spark reasons to sue people rather than trying to say anything....michaeledward said:
I can live with people being unable to gather and jeer at a funeral.
