It’s a good law. It’s really about protecting the protestors. One day they are going to meet up with someone(s) that won’t tolerate it.
To me, that’s a reason why it’s a bad law.
Don’t organized protests usually require permits? If we’re going to draw the line because of bans at military funerals on national cemeteries, we should’ve been out protesting long ago about the restrictions already placed on all large protests.
Maybe my understanding is wrong, though. I see the first amendment arguments, but they already are subject to restrictions. Like, it’s important to me to express my feeling that Fred Phelps should end up in hell or we need to get a better devil, but I’m not allowed to write that on his chest with an Exacto knife (unless he begs me).
I think funerals are private functions and the family should be able to dictate who is and isn’t there. There are many ways for Phelps to get his points across without bothering people who have suffered a great personal loss.
It’s a strange day when I almost agree with Bill Frist: “It’s a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion.”
That said, I’m with Left Hand on this one: I really, really want to back this law but I don’t think I can…yet. It seems like too drastic a step to take against the constitution for the sake of one bigotted little pissant. Other folks have thought of creative ways he could be detained or suggested loopholes that might be found in a law somewhere that I think could have the same effect. Of course, there’s a slippery slope there too. Maybe Phelps will just have an anuerism tonight and make it all go away. If you’re protesting funerals, you aren’t trying to get your point across; you’re just instigating.
I don’t know much about the grey areas your First Amendment, but it would seem to me that a families right to grieve and mourn at a funeral would be (or should be) as valid and protected a form of expression as the protests.
So, if someone stages an action (i.e. a protest) with the dedicated intention of curtailing the free expression and assembly (and exercise of religion) of the mourner’s - and I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to argue in any court that that’s what these protests do both in intent and effect - aren’t they violating the mourner’s civil rights and aren’t there federal laws which can protect them?
I’m against it and so should the families of the fallen soldiers be. If a handful of lunatics can get the entire nation’s bowels in an uproar, we have bigger problems than just a handful of lunatics.
In a political sense I understand it, but I find it sad that Congress didn’t do anything while they were harrassing gay funerals, but now that it’s military funerals too they get involved.
That said, I really should stay out of this thread now, people like Phelps piss me off too much to keep what I say logical and not emotionally charged.
I’m against the law (but really wanna thank the legislators that let it slip when it was just a “gay” thing, like Matthew Sheppard’s funeral was ok, but now that it’s military folk, it’s different. Bastards.)
The ACLU is already challenging Kentucky’s state law(pdf) and all of the local and national lawswill most likely be challenged too.
Moreover, if the law is found to be unconstitutional, it could backfire and provide funding for Phelps (et al):
Besides, I wanna be partying outside the cemetary gates when a Westboro member is being interred.
Good point. I hear there is a Right to Privacy somewhere in the constituion, and a family funeral seems like it’s a private function.
In all seriousness, though, the SCOTUS has approved all kinds of restrictions on free speech (time, place, etc). I think that as long the restriction is “reasonable” and as long as it doesn’t target any one group or is used against only specific ideologies, and as long as everyone is still able to get his point across, then it should be OK. Whether or not this specific law meets those criteria, I don’t know. Still, something like this law should be perfectly constiutional, even if this specific one isn’t.
I don’t think this is what’s meant by a right to privacy. The family is within its rights to kick Phred off private property or have him arrested for trespassing, but as long as the WBC sticks to public areas such as parks or sidewalks, his right trumps the family’s.
Yes, the supreme court has approved restrictions on free speech, but I don’t think it has as much to do with time and place as it does with causing imminent danger or depriving others of their constitutional rights. You can’t shout “fire” in the crowded movie theater for instance, because that would directly cause a deadly panic. There are restrictions for protesting abortion clinics, but only insofar as the protestors cannot deprive a woman of her constitutionally upheld right to get an abortion.
The WBC isn’t doing any of this. They aren’t trespassing, they aren’t putting anyone in mortal danger, and they aren’t depriving anyone of their constitutional rights. They might be causing grief, but not feeling grief is not a constitutionally protected right. Any way you slice this, it’s censorship based solely on content, and that’s a very dangerous thing in the long run.
Gee, why do you think I said “in all seriousness” at the beginning of the next paragraph. 
No, you don’t have the right to protest in Smalltown USA at 2AM on any random day. Nor do you have the right to protest at any location of your choosing. And how is the banning of all protests within “x” feet of a funeral a content based ban?
Sorry, missed that.
Well, there are noise ordinances as well, which I guess is why you couldn’t hold a loud protest, but I doubt SCOTUS would have a problem with a peaceful midnight vigil as long as you weren’t trespassing and kept the noise level down.
The key word here is “protest.” I don’t think SCOTUS can or should make the distinction between a protest and any other type of peaceful demonstration. You might be able to get away with outlawing all demonstrations at a funeral (although I kind of doubt it), but if a bunch of people get together at said funeral and start chanting “God bless the USA” and holding American flags, and you don’t ban them like you ban the Phelpses, you are censoring based on content.
But I bet you couldn’t just do it anywhere you wanted. So, as long as they allow the protests outside the cemetery, I see no reason they can’t be banned inside.
That’s why I said this particular law might not pass muster, but I have no doubt you could make it so that it would with only some minor modifications.
Well, no you couldn’t, which is why I use the word “trespassing.” Hey, if Phred and co. stumble onto private property, go ahead and arrest them and watch me not care. But they seem to be pulling this shit on public property which means that there’s nothing you can do without creating some law that violates their civil rights.
Of course we could. We could also go ahead and form a law against flag-burning in such a way that it would work and keep everyone happy. The question is should we? I say no. No new laws abridging free speech unless they are in perfect accordance with the first amendment. Take a good long look at this administration. Are you sure you want to go ahead and give them this power? For that matter, are you sure you want to give any administration this power regardless of how innocently they shoot you those puppy dog eyes and tell you how they’re only doing this for your own good?
I, for one, would like to see the administration wield a little less power, not more.
The thing that bothers me the most about this law is the fact that Phelps and his twisted crew have been protesting funerals for YEARS now. The only difference is, now they’re protesting at the funerals of soldiers, whereas they used to simply protest at the funerals of queers. I guess i can sort of see a case made for military funerals being a different animal, but it somehow smacks of hypocrisy to me. If the folks in government wanted to help out grieving US citizens, where were they with this law 20 years ago when Freddie started this nonsense? And if it really was a free speech issue back then, isn’t it still one now?
As much as i’m disgusted by Phelps, i just don’t see a compelling reason for a specific ban against protests at military funerals.
I’m generally in favor of free speech. I support it. I understand the “even if speech is hateful shit it should be allowed, lest my hateful shit get banned too” argument. Still I wonder… can’t some wise judge or police force file charges for obstruction, harrassment, disturbing the peace, or making threats and make it stick? Having said all the above, if an angry gang of ex military bikers or a mob of gay guys rode up and beat Phelps into a red stain on the street, I would not lift one finger to save him. I’d probably spit on the corpse.
What is “perfect” agreement with the 1st amendment? In fact, since it says “Congress shall make no law…”, it seems to me that the only way you could be in “perfect” agreement is to make no law… But the genie is out of the bottle on that one, so I see no reason not to legislate within the current 1st amendment jursiprudence. I wouldn’t have any problem with banning protests inside cemeteries, as long as the law targetted all protest.
My thoughts are similar to Frist’s, on one level. We have a great thing in the First Amendment, and it’s a shame that rational people are even in a position to consider a law like this. That’s how bad the Phelpsites are.
I want to like this law, but I just can’t do it. What bothers me here is that it’s directed at protests of military funerals in particular; I would prefer if the ban applied to all protests of funerals if this law just has to exist. Military families don’t need to grieve in private any more than other families do.
I wish it were that simple, Steve. Unfortunately, a lot of these Phelps people are lawyers. They most likely know the law on protests inside and out, which I imagine is why they’ve lasted as long as they have. These guys aren’t the first people to act crazy. They’ve just figured out how to push it further than anyone else.
Yeah, me too. The only thing that bothers me about this is that the same bikers that beat up the anti-gay protestor today will beat up a flag burner or pornographer tomorrow if they think they could get away with it. That said, I’d probably let it happen, too.