[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, if they are physically accosting people then the legality of THAT needs to be addressed. When people carry their rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble beyond their rights and into the realm of civil disturbance and assault we don't pass new laws restricting that speech, we arrest the law breakers and break up the party.

…and like I said, the CONGRESS needs to stay the f•ck out of it. Where are the local and state autorities in this? How about the local and state lawmakers? Why is Congress getting involved? Of yeah, it's a knee-jerk emotional issue in an election year.

While I agree with your desire to protect our rights, (after all that's what this is all about, right?) I believe you give far too little consideration to the possible ramifications of allowing such divisiveness to continue. As ghporter says the protesters can say whatever they want...they just are given limits for doing so which in past days was provided by upbringing and societal pressure.

I've LIVED through wide-scale civil insurrection.

(Have you?)

This measure prevents that.

[cpt kangarooski]

SimeyTheLimey--

The reason for that is probably because of the layout of many of these cemetaries. In a lot of cases, the fenceline is closer to where the actual graves are than the gate. Arlington National Cemetary is one such example. You could be a quarter of a mile from the gate, but only 10 or 20 feet from the actual spot where a military funeral is taking place. Stand there with a megaphone, and you will disrupt the entire thing to the point where the ability of the military to do their job would be severely hampered. In that way, it is just like the court case. It is not just a matter of physical blocking of an entrance.

No, I disagree. There's nothing at all wrong with protesters being in the proximity of whomever they are protesting to or against. They're not in the cemetary, and presumably they are in a sufficiently public forum or private land where they have permission to be. And I think you vastly underestimate the ability of the military (who may be firing off guns, loudly) to deal with noise. This is particularly so since only a small number of funerals will actually be near the fence, indicating that this is overbroad regulation.

Your example of the abortion clinic is actually a good example. AFAIR, Congress passed a law saying that abortion protesters had to keep a certain distance from the entrances. It was upheld, and that was not a case where the balance of the equities was as clear cut as this one.

Of course, IIRC, the distance involved was 8 feet, not 500 (and it was from people going to the entrance, not the entrance itself).

Veterans, the military, federal lands, the bereived -- these are all interests that are very likely to get a deferential treatment before any actual court.

Don't count your equities before they hatch; this regulation doesn't involve veterans per se, nor federal lands, as the buffer zone doesn't make a distinction between what's 500 feet from the cemetary. Could be anything. The military likewise doesn't really have an interest here; they're an arm of the government and it is never the place of the government to legitimately be offended by the opinions of Americans they're serving. That just leaves the bereaved. That's something, but I don't think that's enough. Cohen tells us that we don't have an interest in not being offended in public.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by abe

I believe you give far too little consideration to the possible ramifications of allowing such divisiveness to continue.

No, that's not quite right.

#1 - This really has nothing to do with long term consequences IMO. This has everything to do with a Congress that is willing to restrict the rights of a group of people who most people find offensive in order to make themselves look like they are taking a stand in an election year.

#2 - Saying that this "divisiveness" will escalate into anything is pure speculation that is the product of pure imagination. This isn't a "movement" that is tearing the country apart. This is a very small group of right-wing extremists™ whom the country despises, and therefore get a lot of press.

#3 - Even IF (and that's a BIG IF) this were to grow into a large "problem", whose to say that it should be stopped? These types of movements are just as much a healthy part of a peaceful society as our unity and compassion. You would seem to be an advocate of social engineering.

No, this is a simple case of the "in" group trying to stifle the "out" group.

I've LIVED through wide-scale civil insurrection.

Such as?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

SimeyTheLimey--


No, I disagree. There's nothing at all wrong with protesters being in the proximity of whomever they are protesting to or against. They're not in the cemetary, and presumably they are in a sufficiently public forum or private land where they have permission to be. And I think you vastly underestimate the ability of the military (who may be firing off guns, loudly) to deal with noise. This is particularly so since only a small number of funerals will actually be near the fence, indicating that this is overbroad regulation.

I was explaining why I think the law is written the way it is. That's not really a matter of agreement with the law, or disagreement with the law, but just a matter of drafting. If the law were written only to apply to gates it wouldn't be effective, because in many examples (Arlington being one), the gravessites are nowhere near the gates, but in many cases (Arlington being an example) the graves are very close to the fenceline. Making the law effective does not, in my opinion, make it overbroad.

As for the ability of the military to do their job, I was thinking rather specifically of the military chaplain. He can't really do his job over the din of a loudspeaker, and his job had little to do with the military firing squad, which, by the way, is a part of the ceremony that only lasts a minute or two.

So far we have only analyzed this law in terms of whether it can ban protests totally. I think it could. But in fact, it isn't written that way, it is written as a time, manner, place restriction. That is appropriate when the law applies to limited public forums. To the extent these protests are on public land such as streets, the government can place reasonable time, manner, place restrictitions on them. That is really all this statute does.

Phelps can protest all he wants, but just not in a time and place proximate to a funeral. At other times of the day, he can protest, or, if he wants to, he could protest during a funeral, providing he doesn't attempt to disrupt it. By its terms, the statute only applies to disruptive protests. That is a reasonable time manner and place restriction. And if Phelps (or the ACLU) doesn't think so, then that really just underscores the fact that here, the purpose of the protest isn't communication of a message, but rather depends on its effect of disrupting a military ceremony. If the protest is rendered ineffective by telling Phelps that he has to wait until there are no funerals or giving up his loudspeaker, then communication isn't the point, disruption is. But a reasonable time place and manner restriction is reasonable precisely because it balances uses of land. The land is available to protesters, but not when their protests are disruptive to other people. It is just too bad if the protesters want to disrupt. That is not something that the first amendment has ever protected.

Cohen is completely inapplicable. Cohen might apply to a different factual scenario where people can avoid a protest simply by averting their eyes. That is not possible when you are trying to hear a man speak over the din of a loudspeaker hurling obscenities. It is interesting that you want to construe cases that are directly on point very narrowly, but seem keen to apply a case that is not at all on point very broadly. Cohen would not have been the same case if Cohen had come into the courthouse with a loudspeaker as well as his T-Shirt. The case made that very point -- Cohen's protest was silent, and not disruptive. Phelps' protests are deliberately loud and disruptive, and thus they are not like Cohen's. As a matter of fact, I was in Arlington National Cemetary yesterday, and I saw several people wearing political T shirts that were anti-war, or anti-Bush (or both). Nobody, official, or otherwise, tried to stop them, and they were not disruptive. That is where Cohen might apply, but not here.

Again, I still agree with those who say that Congress is overreacting to one idiot. But that doesn't make something unconstitututional, and it certainly doesn't make it likely that a court would find a statute unconstitutional, expecially when it seems to me that the law has been drafted with knowledge and understanding of the prevailing case law. The ACLU may sue, but as usually happens in these cases, I think the ACLU will lose.

[Kevin]

I just hope none of you supporters to these protests have them there at any of your families funerals.

I think some of you would change your mind then.

Of course you wont admit to it now...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I just hope none of you supporters to these protests have them there at any of your families funerals.

I think some of you would change your mind then.

Of course you wont admit to it now...

That's not fair. I see no evidence that anyone here is supporting the protests. There is a difference between supporting someone's rights to do something and agreeing with their decision to do it.

Some people here may feel that Phelps has the right to do this (or conversely, that Congress does not have the right to stop him), but that doesn't mean that they agree with his protests, or think that he is making the right decision.

[Kevin]

I was saying that I think they would feel DIFFERENTLY, if it happened to them.

That is all.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, if they are physically accosting people then the legality of THAT needs to be addressed. When people carry their rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble beyond their rights and into the realm of civil disturbance and assault we don't pass new laws restricting that speech, we arrest the law breakers and break up the party.

…and like I said, the CONGRESS needs to stay the f•ck out of it. Where are the local and state autorities in this? How about the local and state lawmakers? Why is Congress getting involved? Of yeah, it's a knee-jerk emotional issue in an election year.

See my earlier post. A number of states have enacted laws to prevent ANY demonstrations in the viscinity of funeral services. Texas prohibits any demonstrations within 500 feet of a funeral service location from one hour before to one hour after the service.

The U.S. Congress got into it because state and local laws do not have any effect on federal grounds. This federal law ONLY applies to federally owned cemetaries.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I was saying that I think they would feel DIFFERENTLY, if it happened to them.

That is all.

No, it's not all. You called them supporters of the protests:

none of you supporters to these protests (sic)

That is not fair, and you ought to withdraw it.

[Kevin]

They are supporting those types of protest Simey by saying there should be no law against them.

Saying that said protests should be allowed IS supporting said type of protests.

I am not talking about WHAT they are protesting. But the type of protests themselves.

[ghporter]

Supporting the right to protest in and of itself is NOT supporting THESE particular protesters. I have spent the bulk of my life defending the U.S. Constitution (literally-in the military), and will continue to do so. But the eggregious nature of the "demostrations" in question makes it very difficult to see then as plain and simple First Amendment-protected expressions of protected speech. As I said earlier, stopping these fiends is important, but it gets awfully close to a line I don't want to see crossed, and that bothers me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Saying that said protests should be allowed IS supporting said type of protests.

No. That is fundamentally wrong. The bigger principle is freedom of speech. Whether you support either the manner of speech or the content is an entirely different issue from whether you find freedom of speech is protected. It just happens that there is some technical room for debate about whether or not a particular mode is protected under particular circumstances. Neither the first amendment nor other people's rights to not be confronted with speech they don't approve of are absolutes. The law balances those legitimate interests.

However, where exactly you balance those interests has nothing to do with whether or not the content or the mode meets approval. Really, the content here is irrelevant, and if it becomes anything other than irrelevant, it's a good sign that you are crossing the line from enforcing reasonable restrictions on a fundamental right, over into suppression of unpopular ideas. On this day, of all days, you should be sensitive to the idea that our rights to speak do not depend on being popular.

You are confusing a technical debate over where something falls within the balancing of interests with an emotional debate about the merits of the speech. That is a very dangerous attitude. And since you are the one that made the mistake and misstated the position of others, it behooves you to be adult about it and withdraw the comment.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Supporting the right to protest in and of itself is NOT supporting THESE particular protesters.

Correct. That is what I said. It IS however supporting these types of PROTESTS.

I believe in Freedom of speech too! But I also believe in respecting others.

And no Simey, I am not going to withdrawal any comment just because YOU don't agree with me.

I still stand by my statement if such thing happened to one of the supporter's family they would have a different opinion on the matter.

You don't feel the same way.

Life goes on.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by abe

If you were to take a longer view of this and try to imagine what's the worst that can happen with the existence of the law and then without the law you might see that if the govt. had not passed this law that the situation would only get worse and worse and as ghporter said, there'd be no way of stopping them or the growing animosity between their fellows and their opponents.

ONLY bad could happen by allowing them to protest without restriction.

And you are, like Congress, making a mountain out of a molehill, simply to further your position. This is another one of those "feel good" laws that get passed too frequently, in order to mollify people such as yourself and others who don't realize that this is not a national crisis issue, as it happens infrequently. Sadly, a couple of instances of these nutjobs disrupting funerals make the six o'clock sound byte, and the sheeple extrapolate it out to a national crisis, and Congress, being very good at passing useless laws, then turns to the sheeple and says, "See, we're protecting you," while snickering to each other at how stupid their constituency really is.

This country has far more pressing issues than that of one family's having lost its marbles, and the attention they're getting does nothing but make them more self assured and press on, congratulating each other on how stupid they make an entire nation look.

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

No, that's not quite right.

#1 - This really has nothing to do with long term consequences IMO. This has everything to do with a Congress that is willing to restrict the rights of a group of people who most people find offensive in order to make themselves look like they are taking a stand in an election year.

#2 - Saying that this "divisiveness" will escalate into anything is pure speculation that is the product of pure imagination. This isn't a "movement" that is tearing the country apart. This is a very small group of right-wing extremists™ whom the country despises, and therefore get a lot of press.

#3 - Even IF (and that's a BIG IF) this were to grow into a large "problem", whose to say that it should be stopped? These types of movements are just as much a healthy part of a peaceful society as our unity and compassion. You would seem to be an advocate of social engineering.

No, this is a simple case of the "in" group trying to stifle the "out" group.



Such as?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_Riots

The problem with your philosophy is that it represents a lower form of intelligence.

Situational awareness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Situation awareness)

Situational awareness is being aware of everything that is happening around oneself and the relative importance of everything observed — a constantly evolving picture of the state of the environment. Situational awareness can be described broadly as a person’s state of knowledge or mental model of the situation around him or her.

Situational awareness is important for effective decision making and performance in any complex and dynamic environment.

It was originally an aviation term used to describe awareness of tactical situations during aerial warfare. It has now been adopted throughout aviation, and increasingly in other dynamic, complex, situations requiring human control.
[edit]

Levels of Situational awareness

A general, widely applicable definition describes situational awareness as “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning and the projection of their status in the near future” (Endsley, 1988).

Level 1 situational awareness involves perceiving critical factors in the environment

Level 2 situational awareness understanding what those factors mean, particularly when integrated together in relation to the decision maker’s goals

Level 3 situational awareness is the highest level, an understanding of what will happen with the system in the near future.

These higher levels of situational awareness allow people to function in a timely and effective manner.

An individual's understanding and classification of the situation he or she is in forms the basis for all subsequent decision making and performance. Even the best trained people will perform poorly if their situational awareness is incorrect. One study of aircraft accidents found that as many as 88% of all accidents attributed to human error had an underlying problem with situational awareness (Endsley, 1995).

Other studies have found that a similarly high percentage of human error problems stem from poor situational awareness, which often results from deficiencies in the system capabilities or displays provided to their operators.
[edit]

Training

People can vary significantly in the degree to which they are able to develop and maintain situational awareness in a given situation (Endsley, 2000). Factors contributing to these differences include experience (which helps to build up relevant memory stores for pattern matching to incoming information), and individual cognitive abilities (including factors such as attention sharing ability, spatial abilities, pattern matching ability, perceptual speed, and working memory). Training programs can be used to help people develop better situational awareness by helping to build relevant skills (including communications skills, scan patterns, and contingency planning) and by helping to build a large repertoire of relevant memory stores. (Endsley, 1995)
[edit]

By failing to recognize and take advantage of the inherent lessons of history you restrict this society to functioning like 'dumb' animals, responding only AFTER being victimized.

Your philosophy would always have us at least one step behind any and every problem.

Instead of preventing crime we would only react after the crime has been committed.

The American people are smarter than that. They demand more than that.

[Doofy]

At what point did the right to protest become married to the right to free speech?

Free speech is having a web site, going on the radio, writing letters, printing books, talking crap on forums.

Protesting is just making an ass out of yourself. It's the last resort of people who have already had their free speech and, because everyone ignored them, want to attempt to impose their views on others through physical means.

[ghporter]

Free speech in the States has different connotations than it does in Britain. Here it really DOES include the right to protest. However, there is indeed a difference between free speech and protest-the two are not equivalent. The right to protest cannot unreasonably interfere with other people's lives. I think that this may come down to a court deciding whether or not people are "conducting business" that is federally regulated when attending a funeral on federal land-and I think they will go that way.

States have broader control of behavior in public areas (not necessarily excluding privately owned property that is accessible to the public), so they can establish laws to control protest behavior wherever they want-with state laws to be interpreted and allowed or disallowed by state courts.

[cpt kangarooski]

SimeyTheLimey--

If the law were written only to apply to gates it wouldn't be effective, because in many examples (Arlington being one), the gravessites are nowhere near the gates, but in many cases (Arlington being an example) the graves are very close to the fenceline.

Outside the gate is outside the fence, so I see no difference there, so long as traffic is unimpeded.

Making the law effective does not, in my opinion, make it overbroad.

I disagree. Even if we were to assume that it would be constitutional to bar the protests within a certain distance outside the fence, then it is overbroad to ban them from the entire perimeter. The same effectiveness could be achieve by banning them from a certain distance from the gravesite. If the gravesite is well within the cemetary, then protesters could be close to the fence. If the gravesite was next to the fence, only then would protesters have to maintain a distance.

This TPM regulation would even ban a protest within 500 feet of the fence, all the way on the opposite side of the cemetary, which could be a mile or so away. That's overbroad, since it's quite disconnected from effectiveness at that point.

Phelps can protest all he wants, but just not in a time and place proximate to a funeral. At other times of the day, he can protest, or, if he wants to, he could protest during a funeral, providing he doesn't attempt to disrupt it. By its terms, the statute only applies to disruptive protests.

Actually it also applies to protests that 'tend to disturb' as distinguished from actually disturbing, and while I'd want to search for the language on Lexis, I recall that that's too vague for a speech regulation. Possibly something in or related to Brandenberg.

Kevin--
Simey and ghporter are correct re: their responses to you. You said that people here are "supporters to these protests." I don't think that anyone here supports these protests. But several of us do support the right to these protests. Supporting free speech inevitably requires supporting the right of people you hate to say things you don't want said. I'm Jewish, but I would support the Skokie Nazis, or the Klan, to speak freely; it's not because I support them or their message or people's reactions to them.

Doofy--

At what point did the right to protest become married to the right to free speech?

I would expect that it was sometime in the late 18th century. The First Amendment covers, among other things, "the freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." If the protest is directed at the government, there's also "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

We've always had protests. About government, taxation, payment of debts, labor organization, slavery, war, corruption, you name it.

Free speech is having a web site, going on the radio, writing letters, printing books, talking crap on forums.

Actually, most of that would be freedom of the press, which also is protected, but is far from all that is protected.

ghporter--

States have broader control of behavior in public areas

No, I think you have that backwards. The states are exactly as bound as to what they can do by the First Amendment as the federal government is. In fact, since AFAIK all the states have their own independent free speech guarantees in their own constitutions, which may be more protective of their people than the First Amendment, they may be more limited as to what they can do. I suppose you could make an argument based on states' police power (which the federal government hasn't got), but given the breadth of the commerce power, I don't know if it would really amount to much difference in practice.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by abe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_Riots

LOL! This is EXACTLY the kind of "insurrection" that was completely necessary!

By failing to recognize and take advantage of the inherent lessons of history you restrict this society to functioning like 'dumb' animals, responding only AFTER being victimized.

This is way too broad a statement. There are plenty of areas where a reactive policy is the only correct course, and there are plenty of areas where a proactive policy is either unfair, immoral or ineffective.

The American people are smarter than that. They demand more than that.

"A person is smart...people are scared, panicky, and stupid." -K, Men In Black

The problem with your philosophy is that it represents a lower form of intelligence.

That's a funny bit there about situational awareness. Here's a link for you. Maybe if YOUR "situational awareness" were a little more developed you could see why it is so stupid to restrict the rights of all in order to silence a few or to prevent an imaginary escalation.

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

LOL! This is EXACTLY the kind of "insurrection" that was completely necessary!

Don't be a silly man. People died. It would have been better had the situation NOT gotten to the point where people felt the need or desire to, "Burn, Baby, Burn!"

Originally Posted by smacintush

This is way too broad a statement. There are plenty of areas where a reactive policy is the only correct course, and there are plenty of areas where a proactive policy is either unfair, immoral or ineffective.

We are talking about THIS SPECIFIC LAW and not about general concepts.

Originally Posted by smacintush

That's a funny bit there about situational awareness. Here's a link for you. Maybe if YOUR "situational awareness" were a little more developed you could see why it is so stupid to restrict the rights of all in order to silence a few or to prevent an imaginary escalation.

Of course it's lost on you that the incremental changes being exerted on this society and government are pulling it apart. That's the problem with young people today. They are so willing to allow the country to go unprotected, unmaintained and feel little or no responsibility toward it or are ill equipped to recognize what's in their best interest. And when they talk about changes that should or shouldn't be made to keep the country strong they use as a standard their own hedonism and sense of entitlement. But if they are wrong will they have the smarts, the guts, the attention span to fix this country to be as it should be? I don't know.

Total freedom is anarchy. And the incremental unravelling of this society, a bit here and a bit there, means more freedoms to do things that were never before possible. We were never able to do many of the things we now do daily. Communicate around the world. Do our banking online. Instantly know the weather conditions anywhere on Earth. But are we better off as a society or as a nation because of all our freedoms?

"Well, of course we are!" you'd say.

But what about when our freedoms are used against us by our foes to try to bring us down...

And we feel free enough to feel un-obliged to behave in a traditionally patriotic manner...

And it is our freedoms which permits our already freedom drunk young people to decry ANY sense of restraint in criticizing our government (but no sense of commitment or obligation to it) and so they incrementally send encouraging messages to the enemies of freedom...

And when people have the freedom to violate what used to be a matter of common decency and there would be no way to protect from this shameful and hurtful but otherwise legal practice...

Is more freedom really what we need?

Some folks here think that every challenge to America is best met with either MORE freedom or no change in the freedoms that freedom has brought on. Not even a temporary change.
Even the most reckless teen driver knows that sometimes you have to put on the brakes. That's more than I can say for some of you who believe that the driver of a speeding car about to lose control should apply more gas.

To paraphrase Darwin, it is not the strongest, not the largest, that survive rather it is those best prepared to cope with change. Your method of coping with changes brought on by too much freedom is to liberally increase the elements which caused the problem in the first place.

Is more of a good thing ALWAYS better? Not always.

As I said above, total freedom is anarchy. No one wants that. But to fail to respond to the changes in society that these protests represent would just lead to an equal response by the supporters of the military or the gay rights folks.

And the supporters of both factions would start protesting across the nation and every week there would be a new report of confrontations until it got violent and out of hand and then someone died and the situation would go spinning out of control and only a massive police presence or military presence would be able to put a stop to this whole movement. But by then the protesters would have done what they meant to do.

They would have forced the American people to choose sides...further polarizing this country and raising just one more issue where passionate disagreement could become a flashpoint.

And all of this would be like little gang wars scheduled at the time and place of a deceased veteran's family's greatest sorrow.

You don't realize that there IS such a thing as too much freedom if it leads to chaos, violence, anarchy.

This ban was the right thing to do.

[abe]

"Everybody's temper is shortening because it's been going on for far too long," said retired taxi driver Melvin Stenabaugh, 64, as he watched the angry crowds at the barricades. "I'm afraid somebody is going to wind up getting hurt and I don't know which side it will be."
Last night, as a power failure left the town and surrounding countryside in darkness, nearly 200 Ontario Provincial Police officers — many in riot gear — turned up to keep the two sides apart.
And Caledonia town council, after meeting last night, declared a state of emergency because of the power failure in the town.
[...]
"By declaring a state of emergency we can ask the province for aid as we require it."
Sloat said there is concern about how the power outage will affect schools, seniors' homes and other special-care facilities in the town.

Yesterday's angry confrontation began with natives, who have been protesting a planned housing development on land they say they own and have never sold, agreeing to remove their barricade while talks on resolving the issue continued under the leadership of former Ontario premier David Peterson.

But that offer was quickly rescinded after townsfolk and their supporters began building a barricade of their own just down the road, prompting native protestors to rebuild and reinforce their own barrier.

At several points, dozens of protestors from both sides tangled in fistfights and shoving matches as hapless OPP officers struggled to break up the fights and keep the two sides apart. As they shoved screaming protestors away from each other shouts and insults filled the air.
The display of anger, Peterson said, was "heartbreaking."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968793972154


This type of thing would be multiplied by the dozens every month and would spread over the whole country. This was a protest in Canada over Native land rights but it is the type of thing we could imagine without this law.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

I don't even understand how you can protest someone's funeral? I mean the outcome can't change because of it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

I don't even understand how you can protest someone's funeral? I mean the outcome can't change because of it.

It'd be nice to put on a fake funeral, have the "dead" soldier pop out with an assault rifle and a few hand grenades and take out a couple dozen "God Hates Fags" protesters.

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I just hope none of you supporters to these protests have them there at any of your families funerals.

I think some of you would change your mind then.

Of course you wont admit to it now...

everyone has already posted how you're wrong here, even if you choose to play a game of semantics with it (as usual).

i'd just like to point out that you are effectively arguing that an emotional response should override any long held beliefs in the constitution or freedoms.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

It'd be nice to put on a fake funeral, have the "dead" soldier pop out with an assault rifle and a few hand grenades and take out a couple dozen "God Hates Fags" protesters.

I volunteer. I'm not a soldier but I am sure I can muster up a costume

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

I volunteer. I'm not a soldier but I am sure I can muster up a costume

I live in Louisiana. Getting the gun would be no problem either.

[abe]

Gentlemen...

The idea and the IDEAL, I hope we all subscribe to, is that PEACE AND ORDER AND HAPPINESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW are the most desirable conditions here.

Tit for tat, meeting rudeness with an escalation of hostility only spreads the hostility. It doesn't stop the hostility. It doesn't keep the hostilities from boiling over.

The only way to prevent or stop a fire is to remove one of the three conditions necessary for combustion; heat, fuel or oxygen.

The way the Government sought to prevent the escalation or the spread of this socially disruptive phenomenon was to remove one of the conditions necessary for 'combustion;' provocateurs within a certain proximity.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

I don't even understand how you can protest someone's funeral? I mean the outcome can't change because of it.

They want to get people mad and gain publicity for their cause and force America, as a whole, to choose sides in what they hope would be a divisive issue.

Think of them as "OUR" version of al Qaeda!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

everyone has already posted how you're wrong here, even if you choose to play a game of semantics with it (as usual).

EVERYONE? come on demon. No need to exaggerate. And if that is the case, if I get even MORE people to say I was right, will you say you were wrong?

I don't care HOW many say it.

Supporting it is supporting it.

Some want to support it, yet distance themselves so they can wear both masks. That is dishonest IMHO. Now YOU may believe it's a just righteous thing. But I simply do not.

We disagree.

i'd just like to point out that you are effectively arguing that an emotional response should override any long held beliefs in the constitution or freedoms.

No, we have ALWAYS had separate rules for certain instances when freedom of speech is frowned on.

Not the speech itself, but how, what and were.

This is nothing new. No need to hyperbole it Demon.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

i'd just like to point out that you are effectively arguing that an emotional response should override any long held beliefs in the constitution or freedoms.

Yet somehow he overlooks the emotions when a gay couple is in love and rather point at a rule book.

Hypocrite.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by abe

Don't be a silly man. People died. It would have been better had the situation NOT gotten to the point where people felt the need or desire to, "Burn, Baby, Burn!"

It was the only way to get the attention of those like you who desire to maintain the status quo at the expense of the rights and dignity of human beings. When you are desperate and NO ONE listens things like this can and do happen.

We are talking about THIS SPECIFIC LAW and not about general concepts.

I was responding to this statement by YOU:

By failing to recognize and take advantage of the inherent lessons of history you restrict this society to functioning like 'dumb' animals, responding only AFTER being victimized.

Sure sounds like a general concept statement to me…

Of course it's lost on you that the incremental changes being exerted on this society and government are pulling it apart.

Of course you completely missed that THIS was MY point, and that this stupid law contributes to that.

That's the problem with young people today. They are so willing to allow the country to go unprotected, unmaintained and feel little or no responsibility toward it or are ill equipped to recognize what's in their best interest. And when they talk about changes that should or shouldn't be made to keep the country strong they use as a standard their own hedonism and sense of entitlement. But if they are wrong will they have the smarts, the guts, the attention span to fix this country to be as it should be? I don't know.

Total freedom is anarchy. And the incremental unravelling of this society, a bit here and a bit there, means more freedoms to do things that were never before possible. We were never able to do many of the things we now do daily. Communicate around the world. Do our banking online. Instantly know the weather conditions anywhere on Earth. But are we better off as a society or as a nation because of all our freedoms?

"Well, of course we are!" you'd say.

But what about when our freedoms are used against us by our foes to try to bring us down...

And we feel free enough to feel un-obliged to behave in a traditionally patriotic manner...

And it is our freedoms which permits our already freedom drunk young people to decry ANY sense of restraint in criticizing our government (but no sense of commitment or obligation to it) and so they incrementally send encouraging messages to the enemies of freedom...

And when people have the freedom to violate what used to be a matter of common decency and there would be no way to protect from this shameful and hurtful but otherwise legal practice...

Is more freedom really what we need?

Some folks here think that every challenge to America is best met with either MORE freedom or no change in the freedoms that freedom has brought on. Not even a temporary change.
Even the most reckless teen driver knows that sometimes you have to put on the brakes. That's more than I can say for some of you who believe that the driver of a speeding car about to lose control should apply more gas.

To paraphrase Darwin, it is not the strongest, not the largest, that survive rather it is those best prepared to cope with change. Your method of coping with changes brought on by too much freedom is to liberally increase the elements which caused the problem in the first place.

Is more of a good thing ALWAYS better? Not always.

As I said above, total freedom is anarchy. No one wants that. But to fail to respond to the changes in society that these protests represent would just lead to an equal response by the supporters of the military or the gay rights folks.

And the supporters of both factions would start protesting across the nation and every week there would be a new report of confrontations until it got violent and out of hand and then someone died and the situation would go spinning out of control and only a massive police presence or military presence would be able to put a stop to this whole movement. But by then the protesters would have done what they meant to do.

They would have forced the American people to choose sides...further polarizing this country and raising just one more issue where passionate disagreement could become a flashpoint.

And all of this would be like little gang wars scheduled at the time and place of a deceased veteran's family's greatest sorrow.

You don't realize that there IS such a thing as too much freedom if it leads to chaos, violence, anarchy.

This ban was the right thing to do.

This whole rant is a straw man built out of a fallacy based on assumptions. You are twisting what I said, reading meaning that isn't there and hyperbolizing your mistaken assumptions…as usual…

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Yet somehow he overlooks the emotions when a gay couple is in love and rather point at a rule book.

Hypocrite.

Yeah that is why I said I had NO PROBLEM with gay people getting equal rights.

And I've told you that. So why do you act like I have said otherwise?

Please, if you are going to be apart of this forum, pay attention.

You eat your foot less that way.

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It was the only way to get the attention of those like you who desire to maintain the status quo at the expense of the rights and dignity of human beings. When you are desperate and NO ONE listens things like this can and do happen.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by abe

Wow, seeing that picture made me realize you are right!

Passing a law to silence MLK could have saved his life! It IS better to silence people than to have the slightest risk of people daring act out of line!

[smacintush]

"It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so."

J. Robert Oppenheimer

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Wow, seeing that picture made me realize you are right!

Passing a law to silence MLK could have saved his life! It IS better to silence people than to have the slightest risk of people daring act out of line!

Maybe a law that kept provocateurs FURTHER away from him, such as this funeral protest 'ban' does to the GOD HATES FAGS folk, might have saved his life. If James Earl Ray hadn't been close enough to get a bead on Dr. King he might still be alive today.

No one is telling these protesters they must be silent. Are you multi-brained, part normal and part Fuzzy?

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

"It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so."

J. Robert Oppenheimer

If a child is run over in a hit and run accident and someone mistakenly thinks you were the driven responsible and he or she incites a crowd and then the whole town into believing you're the guilty party should their civil rights to free speech be infringed by the storm trooper government or should the protesters be kept from your neighborhood and harassing you?