[subego]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/08/06/president-obama-signs-honoring-americas-veterans-and-caring-camp-lejeune-families-ac

Second, the law prohibits protests at military funerals in the two hours immediately prior to and following a military funeral -- a measure, the President said, that will ensure that our servicemembers get laid to rest with "the utmost honor and respect."

When did pissing on the Constitution become a symbol of honor and respect?

Someone talk me down.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/08/06/president-obama-signs-honoring-americas-veterans-and-caring-camp-lejeune-families-ac
When did pissing on the Constitution become a symbol of honor and respect?
Someone talk me down.

The Westboro "folks" must be ecstatic at how they're shaping legislation. Don't get me wrong, they're among the most vile a bunch you'll ever see, but they've essentially been memorialized with this.

Otherwise it's just government doing what government does; overreacting to legitimate grievances.

[subego]

It'll be a short memorial. This will get slapped down by the courts.

[Shaddim]

Yeah, this won't wash. Personally, they should allow the protesters but at the same time arm all the mourners with paintball guns.

[andi*pandi]

But then the Westboro'ers would have all this great PR of them being persecuted and having to go to the hospital for paint in their eyes and then they charge the funeralgoers with assault.

This is something that sounds like it should be good but isn't.

You really can't legislate basic human decency.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yeah, this won't wash. Personally, they should allow the protesters but at the same time arm all the mourners with paintball guns.

Now that I can get on board with, especially if it's pink paint.

[The Final Dakar]

MacNN reacted pretty favorably the last time this came up.

http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/2967...l-protest-ban/

[OAW]

I don't have an issue with this legislation. I think it strikes a reasonable balance between the right of groups like Westboro Baptist Church to protest and the right of grieving family members to hold a dignified funeral for their loved one.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I can't blame the courts if they strike them down, but 100 yards for four hours seems like the least infringing measure possible.

[Thorzdad]

It might pass muster. They aren't saying you can't stage a protest at all. They're just delineating a period of time where you can. Kind of like a temporal free-speech zone.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

It might pass muster. They aren't saying you can't stage a protest at all. They're just delineating a period of time where you can. Kind of like a temporal free-speech zone.

What's the practical difference?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I don't have an issue with this legislation. I think it strikes a reasonable balance between the right of groups like Westboro Baptist Church to protest and the right of grieving family members to hold a dignified funeral for their loved one.
OAW

The issue isn't whether this particular piece of legislation is reasonable, the issue is whether the government has the authority to stifle political speech.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

The issue isn't whether this particular piece of legislation is reasonable, the issue is whether the government has the authority to stifle political speech.

As Thorzdad indicated, one would be hard pressed to show how these restrictions is "stifling political speech". These knuckleheads at Westboro Baptist Church have a right to free speech. But they do NOT have a right to disrupt private services. Funny how they never try that BS in the hood.

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Now that I can get on board with, especially if it's pink paint.

Pink paint which has been blessed by gay clergy.

[hyteckit]

Just call it a temporary restraining order against those who are or will be harassing you.

This is nothing more than a civil harassment restraining order.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

As Thorzdad indicated, one would be hard pressed to show how these restrictions is "stifling political speech". These knuckleheads at Westboro Baptist Church have a right to free speech. But they do NOT have a right to disrupt private services. Funny how they never try that BS in the hood.
OAW

They stage their protests on public property. Any portion of the service which takes place on public property (such as people moving from one private property to another via public roads) is public by definition.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

They stage their protests on public property. Any portion of the service which takes place on public property (such as people moving from one private property to another via public roads) is public by definition.

So?

Heard of a civil harassment restraining order?

[subego]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So?
Heard of a civil harassment restraining order?

I have.

You need to get one from a judge, whose duty is to weigh the First Amendment implications on a case-by-case basis. They aren't, to my knowledge, legislated into existence without any judicial review.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

I have.
You need to get one from a judge, whose duty is to weigh the First Amendment implications on a case-by-case basis. They aren't, to my knowledge, legislated into existence without any judicial review.

So this law makes it easier for military funeral services to get a temporary restraining order against harassers.

The question is, does a temporary restraining order violates another person(s) free speech?

[subego]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So this law makes it easier for military funeral services to get a temporary restraining order against harassers.
The question is, does a temporary restraining order violates another person(s) free speech?

There's easier (which I wouldn't necessarily agree with), and there's a blanket granting of it by the legislature. AFAIK, this law does the latter.

Whether a temporary restraining order violates free speech depends on the situation (hence the need for judicial oversight). Whatever the case, the unarguably political nature of the speech is going to put it in a different class than regular speech when it gets considered by the courts.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's easier (which I wouldn't necessarily agree with), and there's a blanket granting of it by the legislature. AFAIK, this law does the latter.
Whether a temporary restraining order violates free speech depends on the situation (hence the need for judicial oversight). Whatever the case, the unarguably political nature of the speech is going to put it in a different class than regular speech when it gets considered by the courts.

The question is when does free speech becomes harassment.

Harassment law is a government-imposed speech restriction on people's speech.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The issue isn't whether this particular piece of legislation is reasonable, the issue is whether the government has the authority to stifle political speech.

Do the families of the deceased have any rights?

[subego]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The question is when does free speech becomes harassment.

And as I said, it depends.

That's also not the only question. Whether the government has (or should have) the right to restrict anti-government speech is also relevant.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do the families of the deceased have any rights?

No. They don't have any rights.


That was sarcasm BTW. Of course they have rights. Rights have an order of precedence however. Freedom of speech, especially political speech, is pretty high up there. Which right do you think takes precedence?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

And as I said, it depends.
That's also not the only question. Whether the government has (or should have) the right to restrict anti-government speech is also relevant.

The law will be Constitutional.

It's just an expansion of existing Harassment laws the is limited to a very narrow case. It automatically grants a temporary restraining order for military funeral services against harassers without the need for a judge.

Unless you are telling me existing Harassment laws are unconstitutional because it restricts free speech.

[subego]

Again, as I've said. The fact it's political speech gives it special protection under the First Amendment.

The question isn't whether anti-harassment laws are constitutional, it's whether anti-harassment laws targeted specifically at political speech are constitutional.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Again, as I've said. The fact it's political speech gives it special protection under the First Amendment.
The question isn't whether anti-harassment laws are constitutional, it's whether anti-harassment laws targeted specifically at political speech are constitutional.

Why do you say political speech gets special protection under the First Amendment?

Are you saying if it's my political belief that women do not belong in a work place and should stay home to cook and clean, it's okay for me express that view towards women in the workplace?

Are you saying if it's my political belief that women who wear revealing clothing at work are sluts, it's okay for me to call them sluts at work?

[subego]

I see a difference between an employer's rights when it comes to restricting the speech of their employees, and the rights of the government when it comes to restricting the (demonstrably anti-government) speech of private citizens.

The courts have consistently seen a difference in these things.

Do you not see a difference? Should the courts treat these two situations equally?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So this law makes it easier for military funeral services to get a temporary restraining order against harassers.
The question is, does a temporary restraining order violates another person(s) free speech?

I would think you are only restricting free speech if you ban people from ever saying certain things anywhere. Or enough places to be near as dammit to anywhere. If people want to spout hate, this law isn't banning them from doing it at home, or all over the internet. The content of their speech isn't being restricted, only the location. Is that really a freedom of speech issue? Sounds more like freedom of movement or something. At any rate its probably much further down the priority list when it comes to rights or you wouldn't be allowed to have prisons.

You don't hear people saying its unconstitutional to ask people to be quiet in a library, do you?

[Waragainstsleep]

Also I take issue that this speech is really political. It doesn't have anything to do with government policy unless anyone seriously thinks the government is ever likely to legislate to execute anyone who isn't in the WBC for being a "fag enabler".

Strictly speaking, are they even protesting anything? Is it really a protest if you are protesting the existence of something? I always thought it was more of a PR stunt or recruitment drive. Thats not political or a protest. It should come under whatever laws you have for advertising standards.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

I see a difference between an employer's rights when it comes to restricting the speech of their employees, and the rights of the government when it comes to restricting the (demonstrably anti-government) speech of private citizens.
The courts have consistently seen a difference in these things.
Do you not see a difference? Should the courts treat these two situations equally?

But I'm the employer.

It's the government restricting my rights to exercise free speech as a private citizen. Government is the one who passed harassment laws restricting my political speech in the workplace.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I would think you are only restricting free speech if you ban people from ever saying certain things anywhere. Or enough places to be near as dammit to anywhere. If people want to spout hate, this law isn't banning them from doing it at home, or all over the internet. The content of their speech isn't being restricted, only the location. Is that really a freedom of speech issue? Sounds more like freedom of movement or something. At any rate its probably much further down the priority list when it comes to rights or you wouldn't be allowed to have prisons.
You don't hear people saying its unconstitutional to ask people to be quiet in a library, do you?

This is a not a free speech issue.

This is a harassment issue. The law just expands a temporary restraining orders to automatically cover military funeral services against harassers.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Also I take issue that this speech is really political. It doesn't have anything to do with government policy unless anyone seriously thinks the government is ever likely to legislate to execute anyone who isn't in the WBC for being a "fag enabler".
Strictly speaking, are they even protesting anything? Is it really a protest if you are protesting the existence of something? I always thought it was more of a PR stunt or recruitment drive. Thats not political or a protest. It should come under whatever laws you have for advertising standards.

It's a harassment issue.

There are harassment laws in the US that restricts free speech.

[ghporter]

I have not been able to find the actual text of the bill that includes the ban on protests... Any links out there?

I personally think the protestors should burst into flames as they start invoking God at funerals, but that's just me... Their continuing to protest after they have "made their point" is now not only a waste of their time, but it dilutes their message that they feel our secular nation has departed from their idea of what our nation should be. Not that they seemed particularly worth listening to before, but now they seem to be just plain loony. Hatefully so. Whether or not they agree with the politics of the entire nation, and whether or not most of us agree with the military action, the Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors who come back draped in a flag were doing what they thought was defending everyone's right to disagree, particularly about things like politics and religion. The enormous irony is, of course, lost on Westboro...

[hyteckit]

Here's the opinion of a Professor of Law at UCLA. He believes Harassment Laws violates free speech, and thus unconstitutional.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/

With little fanfare, “workplace harassment law” has become one of the government’s broadest — and most constitutionally troublesome — speech restrictions. It has been used to suppress, among other things

• political statements
• religious proselytizing
• art, such as prints of Francisco de Goya paintings
• sexually themed (perhaps not even misogynistic) jokes.

He goes into more situations here involving harassment laws:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/substanc.htm

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

They stage their protests on public property. Any portion of the service which takes place on public property (such as people moving from one private property to another via public roads) is public by definition.

Indeed. But the point here is that the sidewalk outside a funeral home is technically "public property". But their activities their when grieving families are entering and leaving the building clearly constitute harassment in the guise of a protest.

harassment - noun
aggressive pressure or intimidation:

protest - noun
a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something:

The reason why I say it's harassment instead of protest is because the target of their activities ... the audience so to speak ... is NOT the government against which they have a constitutional right to petition for the redress of grievances. On the contrary, their target is the media which provides free publicity to them because their attention-whoring antics on such solemn occasions is so beyond the pale. They make no demands on the government nor on society at large. Their only objective is to spew their hateful ideology. There is absolutely nothing POLITICAL about it.

OAW

[OldManMac]

This ban should be considered unconstitutional. I despise the Phelps clan and all they stand for. They are ignorant, closed minded, and angry at the world. That doesn't mean they can't publicly display their ignorance, closed mindedness, and anger, as long as they hurt no one. If we restrict them, then what's next? A few years ago, Oprah made a comment on how beef doesn't taste good on her show, and IIRC, some beef producers had recently pushed for a law making such statements illegal. It cost her millions of her own dollars to defend herself, and she was eventually vindicated. If some of you don't see the directions these types of bans could take us, I suggest you look up the word fascism, and take a refresher course on free speech.

[Shaddim]

I'm not willing to abandon my idea just yet. Tell them that they can protest in that area, but they're required to sign release forms giving up their right to pursue criminal or civil charges.


*SPLAT* *SPLAT* *SPLAT* *SPLAT* *SPLAT* *SPLAT*

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

This ban should be considered unconstitutional. I despise the Phelps clan and all they stand for. They are ignorant, closed minded, and angry at the world. That doesn't mean they can't publicly display their ignorance, closed mindedness, and anger, as long as they hurt no one. If we restrict them, then what's next? A few years ago, Oprah made a comment on how beef doesn't taste good on her show, and IIRC, some beef producers had recently pushed for a law making such statements illegal. It cost her millions of her own dollars to defend herself, and she was eventually vindicated. If some of you don't see the directions these types of bans could take us, I suggest you look up the word fascism, and take a refresher course on free speech.

I understand these sorts of arguments completely, but I don't think you can look at something like this in this sort of vacuum without considering the rights of the people being affected by the Phelps can, right?

[andi*pandi]

There is something kind of orwellian about designated protest zones, 2 miles away from the actual event. It dilutes the purpose.

Which in the case of a Westboro situation, is good... but in the case of political protest, why bother. Itakes away the power of speech.

Let us see what kind of kerfuffle the party conventions bring.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Here's the opinion of a Professor of Law at UCLA. He believes Harassment Laws violates free speech, and thus unconstitutional.

Does he believe all harassment laws are unconstitutional? Does that mean he thinks that any citizen should be allowed to walk into any other citizen's house and say whatever they want, whenever they want? Obviously there would be other laws enabling the homeowner to shoot the person exercising their free speech so it wouldn't be as bad as all that.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Does he believe all harassment laws are unconstitutional? Does that mean he thinks that any citizen should be allowed to walk into any other citizen's house and say whatever they want, whenever they want? Obviously there would be other laws enabling the homeowner to shoot the person exercising their free speech so it wouldn't be as bad as all that.

He believes harassment laws are 'presumptively unconstitutional'.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

There is something kind of orwellian about designated protest zones, 2 miles away from the actual event. It dilutes the purpose.
Which in the case of a Westboro situation, is good... but in the case of political protest, why bother. Itakes away the power of speech.
Let us see what kind of kerfuffle the party conventions bring.

No different from harassment laws the restrict free speech in the workplace.

Or temporary restraining orders that forbid the harasser from being within hundreds of feet from the person who filed the restraining order.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I understand these sorts of arguments completely, but I don't think you can look at something like this in this sort of vacuum without considering the rights of the people being affected by the Phelps can, right?

Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect, and someone will always claim their rights trump others. The rights of the people being affected by the Phelps clan are not being infringed, as long as the Phelps clan doesn't actually interfere with the funerals in any way. The families may not like the noise the Phelps' make, but there is no right to not have to hear noise, or differing opinions. The paramount issue here is insuring free speech for all, no matter whether you agree with the premises they make or not. When one group triumphs in it's ability to squelch dissent, we all lose.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Does he believe all harassment laws are unconstitutional? Does that mean he thinks that any citizen should be allowed to walk into any other citizen's house and say whatever they want, whenever they want? Obviously there would be other laws enabling the homeowner to shoot the person exercising their free speech so it wouldn't be as bad as all that.

If the funerals are held on private land, owned by a church or such, they can just tell the protesters to buzz off. The issue is that the Westborough asshats harass mourners in public cemeteries and from public roads as they're going in and out. I'd like to see them try that sort of nonsense around here. They would be lucky to get away with their heads attached, and the cops would all conveniently be at lunch.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If the funerals are held on private land, owned by a church or such, they can just tell the protesters to buzz off. The issue is that the Westborough asshats harass mourners in public cemeteries and from public roads as they're going in and out. I'd like to see them try that sort of nonsense around here. They would be lucky to get away with their heads attached, and the cops would all conveniently be at lunch.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. I can only assume thats one of the main reason they use children. To hide behind.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No different from harassment laws the restrict free speech in the workplace.
Or temporary restraining orders that forbid the harasser from being within hundreds of feet from the person who filed the restraining order.

Restraining orders are for when you are in fear for your life, your health... not because someone is carrying a sign saying you're a liberal/rightwing/kenyan/silverspoon/socialist/scumbag.

There is also hate speech though. Is that illegal, or just frowned upon?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. I can only assume thats one of the main reason they use children. To hide behind.

Several dozen guys in ski masks and sweat suits; some separate the kids, the others beat the hell out of the adults, the cops show up a short time after "greatly concerned" about what happened. There would be lots of broken bones and a full ER. That's the way I see it going down. Not that I condone such practices, but one of the things you do not do in these parts is disrespect a fallen soldier, it's a good way to get hurt.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Several dozen guys in ski masks and sweat suits; some separate the kids, the others beat the hell out of the adults, the cops show up a short time after "greatly concerned" about what happened. There would be lots of broken bones and a full ER. That's the way I see it going down. Not that I condone such practices, but one of the things you do not do in these parts is disrespect a fallen soldier, it's a good way to get hurt.

Exactly! Like I alluded to earlier ... they always seem to pull this nonsense way out in some quiet little suburb. Let them try that at a fallen soldier's funeral who was from the hood. Talk about a surefire way to catch an "accidental beatdown".

OAW

[Leonard]

Frankly I wish this law was in Canada too. Protesting at a funeral is disrespectful and rude. But then apparently some people have no respect or courtesy.

I'd like to see them protest at they're own families' funerals. I'm sure they wouldn't!