Free speech violation or 'About time'?

Honestly, I think that Fred Phelps and his ilk give God a bad name. For people so dedicated to their faith, they totally missed the point of what it really means to be a follower of Christ. Somehow, I don't think that God is smiling down on Phelps for his actions.

Perhaps he needs to remember this one passage from the book of Ecclesiates: "There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven." A funeral is NOT the right time and place to stage a protest and cause even more grief for the families who lost loved ones. Is this something he would want to see at his mother's funeral?

I really wish that a law didn't have to be passed to help ensure some sense of decency at a funeral. But I also understand how more problems could arise, if Phelps and his followers continue to show such blatant disrespect at those kinds of settings. Yes, we all have our "rights", but we should not use them to trample on another's rights.
 
Kacey said:
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:



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

And I also found this:



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:


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.
​
[/left]
Click to expand...

Thank you Kacey for such excellent sources of information. Not being American it has helped me understand the points of view being expressed here in this thread a little more.

I understand that the people of America hold their rights and freedoms in a very high regard but I can't help but wonder if the men that wrote those rights and freedoms wouldn't agree that there has to be room for change as the country evolves and grows. I think they would be upset with the extreme that people use those rights as in the case we are discussing here.
 
About time.

These "protests" are "harassment" of a grieving family, to disguise or excuse it as free speech is ********.
 
Lisa said:
Thank you Kacey for such excellent sources of information. Not being American it has helped me understand the points of view being expressed here in this thread a little more.

I understand that the people of America hold their rights and freedoms in a very high regard but I can't help but wonder if the men that wrote those rights and freedoms wouldn't agree that there has to be room for change as the country evolves and grows. I think they would be upset with the extreme that people use those rights as in the case we are discussing here.
Click to expand...

:asian:

Our Constitution is a "living document" thats what amendments are about. You better have a damn good reason and it isnt easy to do and rightfully so. Freedoms should be damn hard to alter.

BTW:Modarnis is a lawyer so he would know better, but there are already all kinds of limits on free speech isnt there? Not infringements, you can still protest just not in some places or some manners.
 
Sapper6 said:
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.
Click to expand...


This is indisputably NOT a law that will protect all funerals, it will only protect certain funerals.

This is a law to protect special-interests. And as much as I love, honor, respect, and support the special-interest represented...and realize that the special-interest has pages and pages of untold stories of sacrefice...I still can't bring myself to support this act.

That's just my thoughts though. Still costs me $5 for a Venti at Starbucks... :)
 
Lisa said:
Thank you Kacey for such excellent sources of information. Not being American it has helped me understand the points of view being expressed here in this thread a little more.

I understand that the people of America hold their rights and freedoms in a very high regard but I can't help but wonder if the men that wrote those rights and freedoms wouldn't agree that there has to be room for change as the country evolves and grows. I think they would be upset with the extreme that people use those rights as in the case we are discussing here.
Click to expand...

Lisa, I would posit that it was for the extremists among us that the protections were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I don't think I learned it in school, and only recall learning of it when I read a terribly bad biography of Thomas Jefferson, but the Virginia Bill of Rights (as I recall) was the map used for crafting the Bill of Rights for the Constitution. The idea was to protect those who were different from the State.

And there have been some thought legal explanations as to why this law is what it is ... (although I believe it will still fail when challenged by the ACLU) ... it is still a law written and enacted against one party (Westboro Baptist Church). I feel nothing good can come from such an act.

I understand that Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is the only voice in the House of Representatives that voted against this measure.

This diary, from DailyKos, I found interesting.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/29/21638/2456
 
Carol Kaur said:
This is indisputably NOT a law that will protect all funerals, it will only protect certain funerals.
Click to expand...

not true. please read the act located in the following link. the act prohibits demonstrations near "any cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery." nowhere does it mention enabling the act because of a specific group. of course we all know why this was brought about, the act doesn't say it is only for military funerals.

http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/media/pdfs/fallenheroes.pdf

:)

although the working title of the act is "Respect for Fallen Heroes Act", i don't feel it should be limited to just funerals of this nature. i believe this act can also protect others as well.
 
With sincere respect, Sapper, my point still stands.

The National Cemetary Association, despite it's generic name, is part of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Ordinary civilians have no access to VA benefits.

I'll gladly reassess my position should I be mistaken here. Unfortunatly I don't think I am. Good catch though :asian:


Sapper6 said:
not true. please read the act located in the following link. the act prohibits demonstrations near "any cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery." nowhere does it mention enabling the act because of a specific group. of course we all know why this was brought about, the act doesn't say it is only for military funerals.

http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/media/pdfs/fallenheroes.pdf

:)

although the working title of the act is "Respect for Fallen Heroes Act", i don't feel it should be limited to just funerals of this nature. i believe this act can also protect others as well.
Click to expand...
 
i stand corrected Carol. i guess that's what sleep-deprived posting gets you. please disregard my above post. regardless, i still believe the protection is needed.

on a related note, the cemetery issue being the case, i suppose this act doesn't offer much protection to those not buried on NCA grounds, i.e., private cemeteries? i find myself asking, why push the act if it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum? most of the Phelps protests take place at private and locally owned cemeteries. wow.

thanks for the discussion Carol.

:)
 
Sapper6 said:
i stand corrected Carol. i guess that's what sleep-deprived posting gets you. please disregard my above post. regardless, i still believe the protection is needed.

on a related note, the cemetery issue being the case, i suppose this act doesn't offer much protection to those not buried on NCA grounds, i.e., private cemeteries? i find myself asking, why push the act if it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum? most of the Phelps protests take place at private and locally owned cemeteries. wow.

thanks for the discussion Carol.

:)
Click to expand...

Not to worry at all, and I can't help but wonder if many of the acts supporters are supporting it because the National Cemetary Association sounds about as universal as walking in to a bank and seeing that your account is insured by the FDIC.

It doesn't cover non-VA cemetaries, and doesn't cover services where a cemetary would be used at all, such as a burial at sea or the scattering of ashes.

Religions that believe in reincarnation often have have strict rules about not leaving markers for the dead. Most, if not all, don't peform a burial of the body, chosing instead to cremate the body and scatter it in open waters...so it also becomes a law that protects Jewish soldiers and Christian soldiers, but not necessarily soldiers those of other faiths...even if they die heroically and are otherwise deserving of military honours.

Thanks to you too Sapper for the discussion as well :asian:
 
Sapper6 said:
on a related note, the cemetery issue being the case, i suppose this act doesn't offer much protection to those not buried on NCA grounds, i.e., private cemeteries? i find myself asking, why push the act if it doesn't encompass the entire spectrum?
Click to expand...

Probably because it is a lot less trouble for the federal goverment to pass regulations on areas they control than trying to tell the states how they can do things. And in this case, a lot of people killed in Iraq qualify to be buried in national cemetaries. I think there are a lot of states and cities looking into regulating things for the areas under their control to mirror the federal action based on an article I read a few weeks ago. But those state laws would not cover national cemetaries- and you know that Phelps would take advantage of that unless this is passed. Oh, and private cemeteries can lock the gates on people like Phelp.

Thanks to Kacey for that informative post. It is important to note that Phelps and his crowd can't be stopped from spreading their message. If anyone wants to hear them, they can do so. Phelps can't be stopped from talking to them, preaching to them, having web sites and the like. But your right to swing stops before it reaches my nose. The captive audience rationale is key in this case. No one else has the right to come in and blast me with thier viewpoint. You can't disrupt my wedding, my reading a book at home or anything else to get your message through. No one can stop you from holding those views and getting them out to those who desire to hear them. But you can't run a sound truck through a neighborhood at 2 in the morning.
 
>>>>Quote:
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. >>>>

The captive audience doctrine mentioned here in Schultz case is distinguishable from the issue at hand. In Schultz, the public street where the picketing takes place is open public space.

A cemetery is held out for limited specific public purpose. The factors I previously cited are the ones that apply to a cemetery, which is considered a limited public forum by the current state of Supreme Court caselaw.

While the standard of strict scrutiny is applied to these type cases, content neutral laws that merely regulate time, place, or manner of speech have long been held constitutional
 
The new law bars protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a national cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery. This restriction applies an hour before until an hour after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison."
Click to expand...

So it restricts people from holding rallies or protest near a funeral procession? I don't see a problem with it. Does a widow(er) or child of the deceased really need to hear that their relative died from God's wrath? At least during the burial?
 
It still amazes me that we had to even create a law for this issue. The first time I heard of such a protest, sickened me beayond belief. I recently was watching coverage of a miltary funeral and was amazed at the outpouring of individuals placing themselves (and flags) between the protestors and the funeral.

I am glad the law was passed.
 
Dont some states have laws against interrupting a religious service? I would think that they could be expanded to gravside services.
 
I saw people die during my enlistment in the Marines. I am going with the about time camp full steam on this one.
 
I'm a latecomer to this thread, but I think this is another case of legislation to protect a specific group (in response to media attention) when existing laws cover the situation perfectly fine.
The protestors definitely crossed the line of "peaceful protest." Disturbing the peace, inciting a riot? There is plenty of precedent to hammer them under existing legislation.
 
Hmmm...

The Places in question ARE public... but are the services they are disrupting? I mean, are they Banned from being in those places, or only when it is disruptive to the private services taking place there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

bush in wonderland

Previous Thread

The national language

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top