[Socially Awkward Solo]

"Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison."




http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/....ap/index.html

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

"Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison."




http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/....ap/index.html

Good for Congress!

Whether you support or oppose the Presidency that sends US troops into harms way, you should support the troops who are in harms way. I think the individuals who hold these protests are despicable.



Oh, and just for you SWG, I'll add this: "All Christians Suck Ass!" That should be the desired response you want.

[Monique]

Good for them, for once they are passing a descent law. Even if I do not agree with the war; funerals are the last place where there should be any type of protest.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

I think this should be a law for ANY funeral though, not just military.

[Millennium]

This makes me sad. Far be it from me to defend fiends like the Westboro Baptists, but this is not the proper way to deal with them. Society, not law, needs to be responsible for solving the problems of society.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This makes me sad. Far be it from me to defend fiends like the Westboro Baptists, but this is not the proper way to deal with them. Society, not law, needs to be responsible for solving the problems of society.

I think the problem is that the Westboro Baptists are completely immune to the effects of outside society. They are looked down upon, hated, attacked, even ignored, but nothing seems work. I'm glad this went through, I posted a while back about a high school mate of mine who died in Iraq and whose funeral was protested. Apparently our governor helped pass a bill similiar to this from overseas to make sure that they couldn't get close.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Anyone who protests at ANY funeral should be the ones that are going to be put 6 feet under.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This makes me sad. Far be it from me to defend fiends like the Westboro Baptists, but this is not the proper way to deal with them. Society, not law, needs to be responsible for solving the problems of society.

So you are suggesting we throw rocks at them or something? MEMBERS of our society made a law for us law abiding folks to follow.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So you are suggesting we throw rocks at them or something? MEMBERS of our society made a law for us law abiding folks to follow.

I like the rocks idea.

Kudos to Congress, by the way.

[Jawbone54]

I thought I would feel like the government was trampling another personal freedom if they passed legislation like this, but I don't. I feel that it was perfectly justified. I'm a little confused about how I feel about this right now.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So you are suggesting we throw rocks at them or something?

I was fond of the Patriot Guard's approach, myself.

MEMBERS of our society made a law for us law abiding folks to follow.

At the expense of freedom of speech. That's so not worth it.

[Kevin]

What no rule 8 violation whining?

The sad part is, that we HAD to make such a law.

Some people are sociopaths. They only care about their political shilling.

[Y3a]

So, as far as freedom of speech you think it's OK to yell "FIRE" in a crowded, dark theatre? You think you should be able to say anything, anywhere you want? It really wouldn't be a problem if people had respect for others, and acted like adults. Killing kids who are horrid brats would solve many of the worlds problems.

[cpt kangarooski]

I agree with Mil. I don't think this is constitutional. I hope to see it overturned promptly.

And I would remind Y3a that first, the crowded theater rule is meant to avoid causing a deadly panic, and that second, the case from which it comes is no longer good precedent, so it is pointless to even cite it. As for respect for others, it would be nice if you had that, even for people you disagree with. The Westboro Baptists are asses, but it's more important that we protect their rights than that we protect the mere feelings of mourners. The Cohen case similarly stands for the principle that one's emotional state isn't protected, while offensive speech is.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This makes me sad. Far be it from me to defend fiends like the Westboro Baptists, but this is not the proper way to deal with them. Society, not law, needs to be responsible for solving the problems of society.

I agree. But where society can't or won't or hasn't, it's best that the gummint prevented someone getting killed at one of these protests and a Christian schism being allowed to deepen.

Think of the Sunni and the Shia. This helps prevent that sort of divide.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What no rule 8 violation whining?

The sad part is, that we HAD to make such a law.

Some people are sociopaths. They only care about their political shilling.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I think the problem is that the Westboro Baptists are completely immune to the effects of outside society. They are looked down upon, hated, attacked, even ignored, but nothing seems work. I'm glad this went through, I posted a while back about a high school mate of mine who died in Iraq and whose funeral was protested. Apparently our governor helped pass a bill similiar to this from overseas to make sure that they couldn't get close.

The principle at work here is the same principle that many see as being valid for the government's 'secret leakers.' The greater good is served so they violate the law or in this case, they violate conventions of civility and decency to make their point.

Like Kevin says they are more concerned with their 'shilling' than the feelings they stomp on. Indeed, by stomping on the feelings of the bereaved and those sensitive to the solemnity of these funerals they make it plain that they INTEND to capitalize on the response and that's why they've chosen these victims to further victimize.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I agree with Mil. I don't think this is constitutional. I hope to see it overturned promptly.

And I would remind Y3a that first, the crowded theater rule is meant to avoid causing a deadly panic, and that second, the case from which it comes is no longer good precedent, so it is pointless to even cite it. As for respect for others, it would be nice if you had that, even for people you disagree with. The Westboro Baptists are asses, but it's more important that we protect their rights than that we protect the mere feelings of mourners. The Cohen case similarly stands for the principle that one's emotional state isn't protected, while offensive speech is.

How so? As I understand it (I have only glanced at the issue), this only applies to federal military cemetaries. When you are talking government property, you only have first amendment rights when the property is either a traditional free speech venue (like a park), or where protests have traditionally been allowed. Military cemetaries are neither.

Not only do I think it is safe to say that federal military cemetaries are not traditional free speech venues (unlike, say, public parks, but like, say, court grounds, or the bit of pavement in front of Post Offices), but also there are supreme court cases holding that military bases in general are not places where the public has a right to exercise 1st Amendment rights.

I think this is once again your tendency to say what you think the law ought to be, not what it is.

[cpt kangarooski]

abe--

it's best that the gummint prevented someone getting killed at one of these protests

They already do that. This law is no help at all in this regard.

and a Christian schism being allowed to deepen.

It's unconstitutional for the government to get involved in such matters. If there's a schism in Christianity, then that's fine. If the government interferes, then they are both infringing on the freedom of religion of the people involved, as well as establishing religion in giving official support to one side or the other.

What you said is as offensive and utterly moronic as saying that, if the schism between Catholics and Protestants was happening now, that the government should be involved. Of course, such involement should not happen. And it is that kind of uninvolvement that has helped engender the religious tolerance that prevents the return of the religious wars of the past. It's sad to see that you haven't learned a thing from that.

Simey--
No, check it out. It covers areas around the cemetaries, not just the grounds themselves. If it was not a traditional venue, then I would still dislike it, but I'd have said that it was a bad law, rather than that it was unconstitutional.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

abe--


Simey--
No, check it out. It covers areas around the cemetaries, not just the grounds themselves. If it was not a traditional venue, then I would still dislike it, but I'd have said that it was a bad law, rather than that it was unconstitutional.

I wouldn't think that makes any difference. I don't recall the case names, but as I recall, two places that are not speech venues are the sidewalk outside post offices (sidewalks are generlly free speech areas, this is an exception) and the area outside of courthouses. So you don't have to be on federal ground, just interfering with the federal use of federal ground is enough.

It would be interesting to see if there are any cases about protests at the gates of military bases. I suspect that there have been such cases, but not having a free westlaw account any more, I am not about to check. However, based on the above cases, this seems to me to break no new ground at all. If there isn't already a case on point, I think it is pretty clear which way a court would rule given the other precedent out there.

[abe]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

abe--


They already do that. This law is no help at all in this regard.



It's unconstitutional for the government to get involved in such matters. If there's a schism in Christianity, then that's fine. If the government interferes, then they are both infringing on the freedom of religion of the people involved, as well as establishing religion in giving official support to one side or the other.

What you said is as offensive and utterly moronic as saying that, if the schism between Catholics and Protestants was happening now, that the government should be involved. Of course, such involement should not happen. And it is that kind of uninvolvement that has helped engender the religious tolerance that prevents the return of the religious wars of the past. It's sad to see that you haven't learned a thing from that.

What's really sad is if you REALLY believe that's what I was saying.

[cpt kangarooski]

SimeyTheLimey--

I wouldn't think that makes any difference. I don't recall the case names, but as I recall, two places that are not speech venues are the sidewalk outside post offices (sidewalks are generlly free speech areas, this is an exception)

That was Kokinda. But the sidewalk in that case wasn't an ordinary sidewalk, it was the sidewalk that only connected the Post Office door with the parking lot. The regular sidewalk along the street wouldn't be covered by that case, since the argument was that only people on Post Office business would ever use it, and therefore it wasn't a traditional public forum like a regular sidewalk would be. Also it was federal ground.

and the area outside of courthouses.

I don't recall anything that covered that directly, though I'm sure there was at least dicta, but I don't recall that it extends to public fora bordering the courthouse. For example at the Supreme Court building itself, the plaza with the fountains is off-limits for protesting, but the sidewalk immediately adjacent to it is usually swarming with protesters. And the plaza, of course, is part of the federal courthouse grounds.

So you don't have to be on federal ground, just interfering with the federal use of federal ground is enough.

Eh, so far I don't think you've got support for that. Kokinda is the closest, but that really did -- so it was argued -- interfere with foot traffic for people trying to use the Post Office. The protests in this case are hardly preventing the mourners et al from getting to the grave site. It's offending them, but it does not interfere with their use of federal land.

It would be interesting to see if there are any cases about protests at the gates of military bases. I suspect that there have been such cases, but not having a free westlaw account any more, I am not about to check.

Ditto (though I'm a Lexis man, myself), but I would disagree with your interpretation. Anyway, I'm sure the ACLU will be along soon enough seeking to get it enjoined and overturned. Hopefully they'll win. Just as hopefully, the Westboro Baptists will stop being such asses.

Abe--

What's really sad is if you REALLY believe that's what I was saying.

Meh. You're no stranger to backpedaling and outright untruths around here. Whatever.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So, as far as freedom of speech you think it's OK to yell "FIRE" in a crowded, dark theatre?

Of course not, but the crime there isn't 'yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded, dark theater'; it's inciting a panic. The speech is not a crime; the consequences are. If, for example, there really is a fire in said theater, then there is nothing illegal whatsoever about telling "FIRE!"

That's the thing about this so-called "limitation on the First Amendment": free speech is, and should be, absolute ans sacrosanct. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be responsible for the consequences of what they say. If you use your speech to commit some other crime, then of course you should remain liable for (and guilty of) this other crime. But what other crime did these bastards commit?

What consequences arose from these protests? I'm not saying they weren't fiendish, but ultimately the worst consequences to come from them were some deeply wounded feelings. A terrible thing to do to someone, yes, and exceedingly rude as well, but rudeness is not a crime.

You think you should be able to say anything, anywhere you want?

As long as you remain responsible for the consequences of what you say, then yes, you should.

It really wouldn't be a problem if people had respect for others, and acted like adults.

Indeed not, but that isn't the law's place to interfere.

Killing kids who are horrid brats would solve many of the worlds problems.

And after making that statement, you think I'm being absolutist?

[abe]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Abe--

Meh. You're no stranger to backpedaling and outright untruths around here. Whatever.

Is that your quaint little way of admitting that you did, indeed, misinterpret my post?

And doesn't that also open the door for ALL of your interpretations to be seen as potentially faulty?

I retract the question, your honor.

I have no more questions for this witness.

[cpt kangarooski]

Is that your quaint little way of admitting that you did, indeed, misinterpret my post?

No. It's my straightforward way of saying that you made an ass out of yourself -- again -- and that I pointed this out, and now you're making your usual pathetic evasions.

[abe]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

No. It's my straightforward way of saying that you made an ass out of yourself -- again -- and that I pointed this out, and now you're making your usual pathetic evasions.

Meh. You're no stranger to misinterpretation and making wild accusations around here. Whatever.


(See how lame that sounds? )

[smacintush]

Oh. Joy. Yet another law to legislate morality. Yay.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What no rule 8 violation whining?

The sad part is, that we HAD to make such a law.

Some people are sociopaths. They only care about their political shilling.

The sad part is that there are those that feel this law is necessary.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Killing kids who are horrid brats would solve many of the worlds problems.

I would do nothing of the kind, it would only serve to switch attention to other "problems" to be "solved".

[His Dudeness]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This makes me sad. Far be it from me to defend fiends like the Westboro Baptists, but this is not the proper way to deal with them. Society, not law, needs to be responsible for solving the problems of society.

Well, two words for you:

Smith.
Wesson.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

SimeyTheLimey--


That was Kokinda. But the sidewalk in that case wasn't an ordinary sidewalk, it was the sidewalk that only connected the Post Office door with the parking lot. The regular sidewalk along the street wouldn't be covered by that case, since the argument was that only people on Post Office business would ever use it, and therefore it wasn't a traditional public forum like a regular sidewalk would be. Also it was federal ground.

Who uses the gate to a military base other than the military?

Another case that is probably on point (and again, I don't recall the name) is the one holding that an area used for a state fair was not a public forum where the area was temporarily located on Ft. Dix. So the fact the public is invited to the funeral (the mourners) doesn't change the fact the facility is used only by the military and is not a free speech zone. Another relevant case is that holding that speech can be restricted where it disturbs the peace and quiet of a private residence. You can't post a picket line outside someone's home -- notwithstanding the fact a street is a traditional forum. Put those together with the other cases, and even if there isnt a case directly on point (which I suspect there is, statutory drafters do use Westlaw) and I think you could assemble a pretty persuasive set of precedents for the proposition that the gate of a military base is not a public forum where the protest interferes with the military use of a federal facility and where the gate is only used by the military facility.

If the ACLU challenges, they would be smart to challenge only the $100,000 penalty as excessive (which it certainly sounds to me). But the idea that Congress can't prevent people from disrupting military funerals sounds like a stretch to me. The cases to me point in the opposite direction, and the interest being protected are interests traditionally protected by the courts. I think a court (except perhaps the 9th Circuit ) would uphold. I'm not alone in thingking that. Go take a look at Volokh.

Personally, though, I liked one blogger's suggestion: just decriminalize battery near funerals.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

No. It's my straightforward way of saying that you made an ass out of yourself -- again -- and that I pointed this out, and now you're making your usual pathetic evasions.

cpt um he wasn't the one that made an ass out of himself. And it wasn't even you misinterpreting his post that did it.

It's the way you are now attempting to blame him for your faults.

You owe him an apology.

Originally Posted by smacintush

The sad part is that there are those that feel this law is necessary.

Uh no. If these people going to funerals to protest had ANY common decency or morals we wouldn't need such a law.

We shouldn't as a fairly modern society HAVE to make such rules.

The sad part is, that these people who do this actually exist in this day and age.

Their momma's must have not smacked them on the ass enough when they were young. Or taught them any respect at all.

If these people did not exist, there would be no NEED for such a thing.

Personally, though, I liked one blogger's suggestion: just decriminalize battery near funerals.

Then protest at their funeral.

[abe]

You have to think, also, about the demands these freaks place on law enforcement to keep them apart from the bereaved and the bereaved from them! This way any trouble makers can just be removed. And once they know they'll be arrested if they break the law then maybe they'll stop their nonsense. But in the end fewer cops should be needed to control these funerals and they should be needed for a shorter period of time and the job should be more clear cut. Instead of trying to keep two angry groups apart, it would be enforcing a black & white law and if the freaks violate the law they'll be carted away. Period. Cut and dried.

[cpt kangarooski]

SimeyTheLimey--

Who uses the gate to a military base other than the military?

Who says they're impairing access to or the flow of traffic at the gate?

There is a Planned Parenthood clinic next door to one of the supermarkets in my area. I have often walked past it, due to the relative locations of the store and the nearest trolley stop. Apparently they got some kind of injunction against protesters which requires that protesters stay something like 10 feet from the door, and leave open a 3 foot wide path for access. For convenience, Planned Parenthood painted the lines on the sidewalk.

Something like that might be an acceptable TPM restriction. It doesn't keep the protesters away, but it does alleviate any concerns about them getting in the way.

One of the problems with this bill is that it bars protests within a certain distance of the entire cemetary, not just the gates. And the distance involved is excessive.

Another case that is probably on point (and again, I don't recall the name) is the one holding that an area used for a state fair was not a public forum where the area was temporarily located on Ft. Dix. So the fact the public is invited to the funeral (the mourners) doesn't change the fact the facility is used only by the military and is not a free speech zone.

Who cares? I already agreed that the facility itself is not a traditional public forum. And while the bill bugs me in that regard, my constitutional objection involves the rule about protests outside of the cemetary.

Another relevant case is that holding that speech can be restricted where it disturbs the peace and quiet of a private residence. You can't post a picket line outside someone's home -- notwithstanding the fact a street is a traditional forum.

That's Frisby. It is actually very narrow, and doesn't prohibit all picketing. But it relies very greatly on the idea that while people might have to deal with offensive speech in public, that they should be able to go into their houses to avoid it, and that the public shouldn't be able to push speech into a person's house. Given that we're talking about a cemetary in this case, that concern, which was the main support for Frisby, doesn't apply here.

even if there isnt a case directly on point

You think there is caselaw on funereal protest bans? Maybe, I guess, but I've never heard of any, and everyone seems to be reacting as though this is really a new thing. You'd think that the existence of some kind of precedent would've been noted in news coverage already.

Go take a look at Volokh.

Volokh is not really who I rely upon for insightful analysis.

Personally, though, I liked one blogger's suggestion: just decriminalize battery near funerals.

Thoroughness, man, thoroughness. You're forgetting about the torts.

[Monique]

This law does not keep you from speaking your mind; just where you are going to speak it. Fine you do not like the war, but do you have really to do it at someone's funeral; where are the laws of descency?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This makes me sad. Far be it from me to defend fiends like the Westboro Baptists, but this is not the proper way to deal with them. Society, not law, needs to be responsible for solving the problems of society.

Society makes laws, and laws sometimes solve or lessen problems of the society. That's what laws are for IMO.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

[b]
One of the problems with this bill is that it bars protests within a certain distance of the entire cemetary, not just the gates. And the distance involved is excessive.

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.

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. Veterans, the military, federal lands, the bereived -- these are all interests that are very likely to get a deferential treatment before any actual court. Not to mention, the general presumption of constitutionality. The ACLU might think otherwise, but that is reality.

In any case, while I think the chances of this being struck down are very slim, I would agree with those who think this is a legislative sledgehammer to squash a lunatic fly. That's why I like the idea of just pummeling the idiot. Not only would that be a just result that would not hurt anyone else's rights, but it would be extremely satisfying.

As for tort suits, I am sure we can come up with a public policy exception. Maybe even a rule of necessity.

[abe]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Society makes laws, and laws sometimes solve or lessen problems of the society. That's what laws are for IMO.

[Y3a]

Perhaps sending thousands of those who disapprove of the protesters to the Westboro Baptists church and disrupt their ceremonies and take up the parking might get the point across? But we are dealing with dimwits who can't see a larger picture of the damage to their credbiliy.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Perhaps sending thousands of those who disapprove of the protesters to the Westboro Baptists church and disrupt their ceremonies and take up the parking might get the point across? But we are dealing with dimwits who can't see a larger picture of the damage to their credbiliy.

I agree about their damaging their own credibility, in a way. But in another respect, they have nothing much to lose as they have limited support as it is. By raising their visibility all kinds of malcontented, brain damaged nuts might be attracted to the 'cause.'

But I think disrupting their church services would be a VERY BAD thing. The only thing that would do is provoke more confrontations.

The law stepped in and put an end to their ability to escalate this issue nationally.

The law was a VERY GOOD thing.

[ghporter]

There's a great big sign on every U.S. military installation's gate that says all individuals and their property are subject to search while on the installation. Going on a military base is indeed stepping into different soil-that soil is controlled by the base commander under military regulations and federal law. ANY AND ALL PERSONS ON A MILITARY BASE ARE SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF THAT BASE. For example, the speed limit on a military base is NOT the local or state-established limit, it's established by the base commander (indirectly in some cases), but anyone on that installation that speeds gets a ticket-an enforcable ticket that a federal magistrate administers. Remember, it's federal land, and federal law supersedes all local law there.

Mil, I have to agree with Gossamer about the Westboro idiots; they are immune to society because they have intentionally separated themselves from society. They actually see society as part of "the problem," as it were, so when we say "lay off" they ignore us. Of course that means they are basically ignoring everything Jesus taught, but it's their theology to ignore...

The State of Texas recently passes a similar law for that very reason. Keep in mind that our governor has gotten where he is by catering to the Evangelical voting bloc (oh yes, that's what is is here), and he had no qualms about signing the bill. It blocks demonstrations within 500 feet of the site of a funeral service from one hour before to one hour after the service. Read the article here. As it turns out, a lot of states have passed such laws.

I'm of mixed emotions here. I see the potential for First Amendment restrictions here, but I also see a bunch of terroristic goons making obscene use of the hardest time a family can have for their warped and evil agenda, and I see no other way to stop them.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ghporter

There's a great big sign on every U.S. military installation's gate that says all individuals and their property are subject to search while on the installation. Going on a military base is indeed stepping into different soil-that soil is controlled by the base commander under military regulations and federal law. ANY AND ALL PERSONS ON A MILITARY BASE ARE SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF THAT BASE. For example, the speed limit on a military base is NOT the local or state-established limit, it's established by the base commander (indirectly in some cases), but anyone on that installation that speeds gets a ticket-an enforcable ticket that a federal magistrate administers. Remember, it's federal land, and federal law supersedes all local law there.

Mil, I have to agree with Gossamer about the Westboro idiots; they are immune to society because they have intentionally separated themselves from society. They actually see society as part of "the problem," as it were, so when we say "lay off" they ignore us. Of course that means they are basically ignoring everything Jesus taught, but it's their theology to ignore...

The State of Texas recently passes a similar law for that very reason. Keep in mind that our governor has gotten where he is by catering to the Evangelical voting bloc (oh yes, that's what is is here), and he had no qualms about signing the bill. It blocks demonstrations within 500 feet of the site of a funeral service from one hour before to one hour after the service. Read the article here. As it turns out, a lot of states have passed such laws.

I'm of mixed emotions here. I see the potential for First Amendment restrictions here, but I also see a bunch of terroristic goons making obscene use of the hardest time a family can have for their warped and evil agenda, and I see no other way to stop them.

Good thing we are willing and able to keep the Christian fundamentalist extremists from gaining so many members and so much momentum that they could hijack our religion.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'm of mixed emotions here. I see the potential for First Amendment restrictions here, but I also see a bunch of terroristic goons making obscene use of the hardest time a family can have for their warped and evil agenda, and I see no other way to stop them.

Maybe you shouldn't desire to try and stop them. People have a right to be morons in this country and we do not, AND SHOULD NEVER EVER have the right to be protected from "being offended by idiots".

I'm appalled by the number of people who think that those at the WBC SHOULD be restricted or silenced. This is America people! Get over yourselves! These religious nuts are just that, nuts, but there is no law against being a nut and there shouldn't be.

Congress has no business passing a law like this and I hope it challenged in the SCOTUS and overturned.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Uh no. If these people going to funerals to protest had ANY common decency or morals we wouldn't need such a law.

We shouldn't as a fairly modern society HAVE to make such rules.

The sad part is, that these people who do this actually exist in this day and age.

Their momma's must have not smacked them on the ass enough when they were young. Or taught them any respect at all.

If these people did not exist, there would be no NEED for such a thing.

You or I have NO RIGHT to try and silence another person's right to be an asshat. I personally would LOVE to see the mainstream Christians STFU (because I find their ideas offensive) but just because I think that Christianity is retarded doesn't mean that I should have the right to silence them.

The Congress has overstepped their bounds with this. If this were a state or local law that would be different.

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Maybe you shouldn't desire to try and stop them. People have a right to be morons in this country and we do not, AND SHOULD NEVER EVER have the right to be protected from "being offended by idiots".

I'm appalled by the number of people who think that those at the WBC SHOULD be restricted or silenced. This is America people! Get over yourselves! These religious nuts are just that, nuts, but there is no law against being a nut and there shouldn't be.

Congress has no business passing a law like this and I hope it challenged in the SCOTUS and overturned.

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.

[abe]

It would be like allowing cancer to develop in a body and citing the reason for not stopping it is because it is a natural thing in the body. Or because the patient is opposed to surgery even after the same patient has had minor procedures in the past.

[smacintush]

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.

That's asinine reasoning. It is a GOOD thing to restrict a persons speech to prevent future situation that you THINK will come about? Surely you can do better than that!

If their actions escalate into something that is illegal then THAT should be dealt with, but imposing on their rights out of self-righteousness only serves the egos of those who created this law and those who oppose it.

Perhaps those of you who support this should think of the long term implications of allowing the Congress to impose of a persons rights this way. What's next? How about after that?

This is more of the nanny-state syndrome™ that is permeating our people's mindset. Why do so many of you want to be mothered over by the federal government? Maybe you should move back home with your parents and let them take care of you. You obviously can't deal with life by yourselves.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by abe

It would be like allowing cancer to develop in a body and citing the reason for not stopping it is because it is a natural thing in the body. Or because the patient is opposed to surgery even after the same patient has had minor procedures in the past.

So you are comparing free speech to cancer? Nice.

This is another terrible analogy. Freedom of speech INCLUDES the stuff most of us disagree with, not just the stuff we think is "right".

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Maybe you shouldn't desire to try and stop them. People have a right to be morons in this country and we do not, AND SHOULD NEVER EVER have the right to be protected from "being offended by idiots".

I'm appalled by the number of people who think that those at the WBC SHOULD be restricted or silenced. This is America people! Get over yourselves! These religious nuts are just that, nuts, but there is no law against being a nut and there shouldn't be.

Congress has no business passing a law like this and I hope it challenged in the SCOTUS and overturned.

If they just made noise that would be one thing. But they do not. They actually physically acost members of funeral parties, interfere with services, and even assault people with their signs. This is not "protected speech" or something that's merely offensive. It is WRONG. If they backed off and made their statements, that would be fine-it would show just how idiotic and hypocritical these individuals are. But their actions are far worse, and THOSE ACTIONS need to be stopped.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ghporter

If they just made noise that would be one thing. But they do not. They actually physically acost members of funeral parties, interfere with services, and even assault people with their signs. This is not "protected speech" or something that's merely offensive. It is WRONG. If they backed off and made their statements, that would be fine-it would show just how idiotic and hypocritical these individuals are. But their actions are far worse, and THOSE ACTIONS need to be stopped.

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.