Free speech violation or 'About time'?

[Andrew Green]

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.

You are right, but, I think it's apples and oranges.

Protesting the war is one thing, doing it at someone's funeral is another. I think they are fine in saying that they object, and even the reasons they object. They are even free to protest, but doing it at a funeral is an abuse of their free speech and they know it, that's why they are doing it.

If they protested at a gov't building, or in front of a military base they'd be ignored. But by crossing that line, and doing this in at funerals, they are getting media attention.

And the best way to get rid of your right to free speech is to abuse it.

 

[michaeledward]

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....

I can live with people being unable to gather and jeer at a funeral.

There are five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constituion; Speech is one of those. Also protected by the First Amendment is the right of the people to Peaceably Assemble. Why they are assembling is totally irrelevant to the protection offered.

I never swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. But, I am loath to give it away.

Reverend Phelps has a long history of protests. Matthew Sheppard's funeral was similiarly also attended by Mr. Phelps. On that occassion his congregation carried placards saying "God Hates Fags" and "No Fags In Heaven". If his faith leads him to make such protests, in bad taste though they be, who am I to restrict him in light of the Establishment clause, the Peaceable Assembly, and Free Speech protections.

I wonder if there could be some ecclesiastic pressures brought to bear, rather than legislative?

 

[modarnis]

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.

While you would like to pin this one on Bush, public forum and non public forum free speech issues date into at least the late 1800's when Justice Holmes wrote Mass v. Davis in 1895. Courts and scholars have wrestled with the competing interests of speech and public place. I will limit my commentary to this type of first amendment issue. Obviously things like conduct=speech, fighting words, and obscenity laws have also filled volumes of scholarly work.

As early as 1941 in New Hampshire v. Cox, the Court dealt with local regulation of the time place and manner of speech. Balancing competing interests and avoiding a chilling effect were/are certainly overriding concerns for the Court while dealing with these types of questions

The Supreme Court in its line of public forum cases dating back into the mid 1960's would disagree with you that this particular law violates the principles of the first amendment. Governments (state, local, federal) can regulate the time place and manner of assembly for free speech as long as:

1. The regulation is "content neutral" so law cannot apply to a specific groups speech

2.Whether the manner of expression is incompatible with the normal activity of the specific place at a specific time See Grayned v. Rockford 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (case deals with protest outside a school that is in session)

3. Regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a particular government interest (in this case keeping a buffer around funeral site)

So the reality is, they still have the right to say whatever they want with minimal restriction only on time place and manner

 

[Sapper6]

i say it's about time.

btw, great post modarnis.

 

[Sapper6]

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.

protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier is wrong. you can look at it however you want. if the phelp's people want to protest the war, that's fine, they can do it in washington. their actions at the soldier funerals are not protesting the war, they are protesting the soldier; thanking God for IEDs, referring to soldiers as fags, telling them God hates them and that's why they died. they carry signs that read the following:

-Not blessed, just cursed
-God hates fag enablers
-Thank God for maimed Marines
-God hates your tears
-Don't pray for the USA
-Thank God for dead soldiers
-Thank God for 9/11
-Thank God for Katrina
-God killed your fag son

you say it's free speech. you say it's a violation of their rights to keep them away from funerals. i say too bad. i say the actions are disrespectful of the dead and their families.

what say you if you saw this activity at your closest friend's funeral? i imagine you'd have a change of heart.

 

[modarnis]

i say it's about time.

btw, great post modarnis.

One of the few semesters of law school I actually paid attention and wasn't making martial arts my highest priority

 

[Lisa]

I am glad they can no longer cause more pain to the family and friends of the fallen soldiers. Nothing irritates me more then people that think it is okay to inflict more pain on others and do it in the name of God.

Shame on them.

 

[OUMoose]

I'm going to have to ride the fence on this one. On one hand, I can agree that any legislation that risks banning public opinion on the grounds that it's not what people want to hear is a step in the wrong direction. The right to free speech and free assembly is something that these soldiers took an oath to protect. Once we start down that road, it will be difficult to stop, since opinions change so fast.

On the other hand, laws (in a perfect world, I know) are meant to protect people. In this case, the protest is causing undue grief to the family members of the deceased. They've already lost a son/daughter/father/mother, and this group is only compounding the anguish. Since they don't have the common decency to give these soldiers' families their due grieving period, there almost has to be some law on the books to say they can't do it at that time and place.

I'm no fan of Bush, nor a fan of this war, and I can think of a thousand and one places to protest and speak my voice. At the memorial service for a fallen soldier who died for what they believe in is most certainly not one of them.

 

[Marginal]

There are five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constituion; Speech is one of those. Also protected by the First Amendment is the right of the people to Peaceably Assemble. Why they are assembling is totally irrelevant to the protection offered.

IMO, intentionally baiting imminent lawless action is not a viable form of free speech.

 

[michaeledward]

IMO, intentionally baiting imminent lawless action is not a viable form of free speech.

Makes you wonder why this thread was started, if not for intentionally baiting .....

No guess on any action the Baptist Church can take to reign in this pastor?

 

[Marginal]

I haven't heard of any actual links to the Babtists and Phelps aside from him using a similar name for his "church".

 

[Monadnock]

Makes you wonder why this thread was started, if not for intentionally baiting .....

He he he...it is a sticky subject.

I'm actually surprised at how many 'bout timer's' there are...which is pretty much how I feel.

They can still protest, just from a distance. Whether it is 2 feet or 200 feet from the coffin, somewhere someone is going to be offended. We have to draw the line at some common denominator.

 

[Sapper6]

No guess on any action the Baptist Church can take to reign in this pastor?

Fred Phelps' daughter (and church spokeswoman) recently appeared on Hannity and Colmes. she stated their "congregation" was 150 members strong, but also stated that over 90% of which are family members. i wouldn't exactly call this a church. more like a cult, IMO. marriage among church members is prohibited outside the congregation. can you say inbreeding?

http://www.answers.com/topic/members-of-westboro-baptist-church

you can find more info at wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church_(Topeka)

From what I heard, the Southern Baptist Convention had shunned Mr. Phelps and his teachings. The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed them as a hate group.

IMHO, laws and acts are passed to benefit the American people, not to enable hate driven groups to spread propoganda

 

[michaeledward]

So, what we have (again) is a law being written for (or actually against) one constituent (Fred Phelps is Terri Schiavo). Doesn't that seem like a terrible waste of Congressional time and energy? I suppose it looks nice on the campaign literature.

You know, if Hannity and Colmes would ignore these people, it would go a long way to making them disappear.

Is there any 'News' value in interviewing these people?

 

[Sapper6]

this is great!

A satire website called God Hates Shrimp (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com) was created in 2004 in response to WBC's inflamatory website. This website creates an interesting theological point, citing Leviticus 11:10, the same book and section that supposedly labels homosexuality as abomination, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you". By WBC logic, as is pointed out on the above-mentioned website, Long John Silver's and Red Lobster restaurants should likewise be relentlessly picketted.

 

[Sapper6]

the Phelps people are hate-filled, ignorant slime. allowing them the right to protest a funeral would be no different than allowing the klu klux klan to burn crosses in front of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. they're both hate-filled motivation, lacking of everything intelligent and right.

 

[Carol]

I almost hate to say this but.... (face twisted in pain)

Free Speech Violation.

And this is comig from someone that would probably be "over there" right now had I not been DQ'ed from joining the Navy Reserves.

Personaly I think Phelps and his group of so-called Christians are an absolute defamation to Christianity and anyone else that believes in God or human dignity.

To denigrate and use the death of a warrior and the suffering of family and friends that loved him/her as toy to be tossed about, simply to indulge the greed they are feeling over their own hate is absolutely shameful.

Believing in the sanctity of human life, I believe that all funerals deserve such protection...whether the person or not the person died of a politically inconvenient cause.

As much as I love, support, honor, and respect our troops....and I hope my avatar and sig file do a little bit to show that I mean this sincerely and not just blowing smoke....I can't bring myself to believe that their funerals deserve to be more protected than anyone elses.

I do not believe this should be a federal law...because I sure as hell want my freedom of speech to tell Phelps what vile piece of demonic sacrelidge he is. I'd like to quote scripture to him too...I think Jesus said something about loving thy neighbor...

 

[michaeledward]

He he he...it is a sticky subject.

I'm actually surprised at how many 'bout timer's' there are...which is pretty much how I feel.

They can still protest, just from a distance. Whether it is 2 feet or 200 feet from the coffin, somewhere someone is going to be offended. We have to draw the line at some common denominator.

Why would it surprise you that most people feel that protecting our service people and their families is something of value? It does not surprise me.

I still don't think this is something that should be legislated. Writing common decency into law is sure to create some unintended consequences.

Fred Phelps (and his followers) are reprehensible. They were reprehensible when they dealt with Matthew Sheppards death (they actually have a clock on their web page reporting how long Mr. Sheppard has been in Hell). They were reprehensible when they protested Dover, New Hampshire high school when the senior class elected a same-sex couple as 'Class Sweethearts'. They were reprehensible when they protested at Phillips Exeter Academy, also in New Hampshire.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/2002news/1_6_e1.htm



How many of you protesting his behavior today (or approving of this targeted legislation), protested his behavior in other cases, I wonder?

 

[Kacey]

I almost hate to say this but.... (face twisted in pain)

Free Speech Violation.

I said 'about time' for the same reason I support similar restrictions on picketing and protesting at abortion clinics - there is a limited access/location in both instances, and the people entering the clinic or attending the funeral have no option but to listen to the picketers or avoid the location entirely. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and harassment - and there are laws against harassment.

Because this thread intrigued me, I went looking for legal information about this issue, and found this:

The Captive Audience Rationale in Particular Places Indeed Supreme Court case law expressly permits state regulation of speech to benefit "captive" adults. For example, in the 1988 case of Frisby v. Schultz, the Justices upheld a Wisconsin ordinance that forbade picketers from targeting a residence. Quoting prior precedent, the Court explained: "That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech . . . does not mean we must be captives everywhere."
Even as cases like Frisby reject the notion that the captive audience rationale can be confined to cases involving children, they endorse a different distinction: The captive audience concept applies only in special places. Clearly the home counts as one such place. Are there others?

Yes, there are plenty. Although the issue has yet to reach the courts, the Westboro Baptist protests strongly suggest that mourners at a funeral should count as captives. At one time or another, lower courts have also relied on the captive audience rationale to uphold restrictions on expression at military induction centers and outside abortion clinics, as well as to uphold restrictions on panhandling in the New York City subways. Meanwhile, commentators have often suggested that laws restricting verbal harassment in the workplace can be justified on the ground that employees are a captive audience of their co-workers.

Which is part of a larger article to be found at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060426.html

And I also found this:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]C. Exceptions to Freedom of Expression[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from England that was the basis of our American legal system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Rather than merely reciting the list of established exceptions, it is important to understand the rationale for making exceptions to free speech protection under the Constitution. The value of free speech sometimes clashes with other important values in our culture.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]How should we weigh the relative importance of these competing social values? How do we balance free speech against racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism which promotes values we despise as a country? against speech which some consider a symptom of the decay of society's traditional values? against speech which directly results in physical injury to another person?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections include the following:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words | Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity[/FONT]​

I found this at http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C, also part of a larger article.

Historically, freedom of speech was intended to allow people in the fledgling US the right to speak against the government - an offense that could have gotten them killed in England - it was not intended as the right to say whatever you wanted, wherever you wanted, to whomever you wanted, or we couldn't have laws about public obscenity.

From wikipedia:

The right to freedom of expression is not absolute in any country; governments always prohibit certain types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law, pursue an aim recognized as legitimate, and be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals. It is generally recognised that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.

Could this be the top of a slippery slope? Certainly. But if people will not act in a civilized manner, it becomes incumbent upon society to enforce rules of civility - and therefore it becomes incumbent upon the members of society to participate in the governmental process. Relatively few people vote, and therefore relatively few people determine the policies of the government. I have been watching this issue carefully, and intend to continue to do so - but for now, I agree with the legal actions taken in regard to this issue.
​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#obscenity[/FONT]

 

[Sapper6]

How many of you protesting his behavior today (or approving of this targeted legislation), protested his behavior in other cases, I wonder?

how does that matter? his protesting of military funerals has been the only phelps topic on MT. just because we didn't type it out here doesn't mean we ignore it.

Carol,

you say it's a free speech violation but go on to say that funerals deserve this kind of protection. i'm confused.

then later say that you can't bring yourself to believe that their funerals should be more protected than others. i don't see why it should be. i believe this act should encompass all funerals.