I wasn’t talking about the feds. I was talking about conservatives. If you read the rest of my posts you’ll see that I’m against this kind of legislation on principle. I wasn’t talking about legal actions, just noting that political conservatives in general didn’t care about Phelps when he was picketing gay funerals so I find their protestations now to be a little hypocritical.
I think it’s dangerous for democracy by creating a defined “apolitical” safe zone for elected officials. Do you really think that such actions are without any political motivation?
I mean “essentially” as in “more or less,” not as in “through and through.” It did take me awhile to think of an apolitical presidential act unrelated to a funeral, but really, I think that such acts, even if they’ve got some political motivation, are sufficiently apolitical that it’s okay to have them just fulfill their own function.
I’m not clear on how to legislate this distinction, however, and am not sure it can be done; if it can’t, you’re right.
Daniel
I don’t even agree that these things are “essentially” apolitical. I think the fact that the government is putting on funerals at all reflects a keen sensitivity to the political nature of the matter. As an administrative or military operations matter, publicly funded funerals are entirely inessential. They have nothing to do with the actual operations and functions of government and the military. That doesn’t mean that the government shouldn’t do them, but it does mean that it’s not an apolitical matter.
Families of dead soldiers and other members of the public like having government-sponsored funerals; they would be annoyed if they ended – so the consideration of whether to have political funerals has at its base a very political element. I would say that these funerals are geometrically more political at heart than the muscular distrophy award you propose, because a lot fewer people are going to care about the latter. In any case, the mere fact of a government official interacting ex officio with the public is a sufficiently political matter, in my eyes, to fail to clear that hurdle.
I don’t see where this affects the 1st amendment at all.
Freedom of speech is not a one-way street. It is the right to be heard, not the right to be listened to. That’s why we have noise ordinance laws.
Put another way, the right to be heard only extends to those who wish to hear it. The 1st amendment provides a safe haven for the exchange of ideas. It cannot be viewed as a guarantor for a bully pulpit.
Personally, I’m amazed at the restraint exhibited by the grieving families. Can’t say what I would do if I was subjected to it.
I don’t see your first sentence and your second sentence squaring with each other. How could you guarantee a safe haven for the exchange of ideas without allowing for the possible existence of a bully pulpit? And anyway, is this really a bully pulpit? Don’t forget that no one in the WBC holds office or rank from which to shout opinions to the masses. They’re just common nutcases who call themselves a church. I don’t think this is what is meant by a bully pulpit.
Sure there are noise ordinances, but I imagine they would apply to the funeral procession as well as to the protestors. You can’t enforce those ordinances selectively with regards to either group or you’re right back into censoring for content.
It is neither. It is the right to speak.
Noise ordinance laws have nothing to do with a right to be heard or a right to be listened to.
And that is the right to ignore you or leave the public place where you are speaking. It’s not the right to make you be quiet when you’re speaking in a public place.
While the term bully pulpit originated from a political figure it has a broader context meant to include an advantageous position. That is what I’m trying to convey. A funeral is a singular event wherein attendance cannot be easily deferred. The grieving friends and relatives become an unwilling captive audience. Yelling your personal views at someone is not an exchange of ideas, it’s verbal harassment.
Yes, noise ordinances apply to funeral processions as well.
and
Like I said, they CAN"T do anything about random funerals- they don’t have the jurisdiction. The ban passed by the US Congress has a very limited scope (only funerals in National Cemetaries, which pretty much limits it to military funerals). I guess state bans are wrong (including the one passed in Texas, where there are about 3 liberals in the entire state legislature) because they are so late to the game. Make up your mind.
Make up my mind about what? I’m equally against all bans. Congress has no jurisdiction to prohibit free speech anywhere. National cemetaries are no exception. I think the state ban is Texas is BAD. Where the fuck do you get the idea that I would support it?
The 1st Amendment has no such exceptions.
And that’s what I think it all comes down to for me. The First Amendment is very simple and very direct.
It doesn’t say “Unless it’s porn.” It doesn’t say, "Unless you burn a flag at a protest. It doesn’t say “Unless Eminem raps about slapping some bitch up and shooting her in the head.” You are free to speak your mind, and I think that’s what makes all the difference between living in America and living anywhere else. We might start illegal, fucked-up wars. We might elect total wingnuts into the Oval Office, but dammit we can complain about it, and we can complain about it any old way we choose saying any old crazy thing we want.
OK, maybe not any old way. We’re not allowed to put other people in danger or deprive them of their constitutional rights, or create a health hazard. We’re not allowed to slander, either, but I don’t see Phred and his Phucked-up Phamily doing that. As disgusting as what they’re saying is, it’s within the limits of the law, and it’s protected by the constitution.
If you could make a case for harrassment, I’d be all for hauling them in, but I kind of think that if that were possible, they would have been shut down a long, long time ago.
No, it’s the freedom to speak. You do not have the right to lecture me. You cannot compel me to listen. In my pursuit of happiness I have the freedom not to listen to you. Conflict arises when these freedoms overlap. It is not legal to walk up to someone reading a book in a public park and engage in a verbal assault. That would be disturbing the peace. While the person reading has the ability to leave, (thus avoiding the confrontation) so does the person who wishes to speak. The right to convey a message cannot be enforced against another person.
**The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message. **
. I didn’t say noise ordinance, I said disturbing the peace. Phelps can’t stand on the sidewalk next to your house with a bullhorn and tell the world what a fag-loving jerk you are and that in his/her church’s opinion that’s why your relatives died.
Show me where it says you can mandate that I listen to you.
You don’t have to listen but the government can’t make me shut up.
The need for police protection would suggest that. As a former lawyer he has demonstrated an intent to sue:
**In December 1996, in the wake of Fred Phelps’ assault and battery conviction, two Topeka police officers came forward claiming that then-police chief Beavers had, in 1993, enacted a “no-arrest” policy that actively ignored complaints against Phelps and WBC members unless they were blatantly physically violent and/or witnessed by several persons. Beavers was quoted as saying:
The Phelpses are not going to live in my house. Don’t these officers know the Phelpses can sue us and take our houses? Commander, do you understand my order? **
His life story is a pretty sad read.
Yes, they can, as I posted above:
**The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message. **
What does this have to do with protesting funerals?
Either you didn’t read my other threads or you can’t imagine how disturbing this would be to a funeral. Either way this is a pointless exchange. Have a nice weekend and don’t let the Phelps bugs bite.
You have, repeatedly, in this thread, complained that
and
I get it. You don’t like any kind of protest ban, but you REPEATEDLY bitch about how narrow it is. Kinda like bitching about the shitty food, and the small portions.