I oppose it, if only so that I can attend Phelps’ own funeral armed with a package of franks and a bag of marshmallows. And a long fork…
I disagree that it’s not symbolic. These families are not in any real physical danger, but leaving that aside, why is it more important or necessary to “shield” the families of veterans than the families of murdered homosexuals?
It’s not. They didn’t go to Falwell’s funeral either. The group was formed for one reason. If you think their should be a group that covers the other funerals that Phelps protests then go right ahead and form one.
Isn’t the Constitutionality of this new law covered by the “Fighting Words” doctrine. A quick check of Wikipedia referred back to a 1942 SCOTUS decision that said "These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting words” those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. "
Seems to me that’s the very thing WBC is trying to accomplish with their protests, and their behavior is not Constitutionally protected. Are there any doctrines that compete with the Fighting Words doctrine in testing this situation?
Nic how many of your colleagues are Viet Nam era vets, and do you think that this mission has something to do with the way those vets were treated back in their day?
I think it is clear, despite the opinions of the First Amendment absolutists here, that these protests can be subjected to reasonable regulation, and that that would be perfectly constitutional.
This law looks like it would pass muster to me, being only a time and place restriction and being content neutral.
I don’t think there should be such a group. You’re off base on this.
Which just proves my point: Phelps was not an unknown before this happened. His protests had received national media attention, but most people didn’t care, because he was just going after homos. Now that he’s going after our honored war dead, it’s suddenly a matter for congressional attention, and people are trying to find some way to weasel around the first ammendment so they can shut him up. Fuck that. We put up with this asshole for years, and we didn’t need to go running to Congress to make him stop. Veterans can suck it up and deal with his bullshit the same way we did.
And Mr. Moto, when you start crafting laws specifically designed to target unpopular minorities saying things the mainstream doesn’t like to hear, you are not my ally. I’m going to stand with the Phelpses on this one, because speaking as a member of an unpopular minority that says things the mainstream doesn’t want to hear, that’s not a precedent I want to support.
Phelps may just be the Most Pitted Person Ever in the history of the SDMB (with the possible exception of George W. Bush, but even Bush has his defenders).
But that isn’t what is being done. What is being done is spelling out the time and place to do it - no different than many other restrictions on protests already on the books.
Frisby v. Schultz, mentioned above, was a case brought by antiabortion protesters (an unpopular minority, indeed) who wanted to picket outside of the house of a doctor who performed them. They were peaceful in their protest, yet still ran afoul of a city ordinance banning picketing outside of a residence, and were prosecuted.
Now, shouldn’t they have been prosecuted? Shouldn’t they have availed themselves of legal forms of protest - including marching in those same streets, leafleting the neighborhood, making phone calls, or the like?
Yes and yes.
Except, of course, the law only exists to get Fred Phelps - and no one else - to be quiet. And it only exists because he protested military funerals - not because of any of the other funerals that he’s protested. They may have been able to draft the law in such a way that it will pass a review by the Supreme Court, but it was created with the specific intent of preventing one particular individual from making one particular expression. And I have a big problem with that. And so should you.
I’m thinking it’s a bad law, but that’s not why I’m posting. I’m posting to say that one of the things that pisses me off about this pig-phucker is that he draws attention away from the pig-phuckers who should be getting protested at these funerals, namely George W. “Pig-phucker” Bush, and Dick “Pig-phucker” Cheney.
Or, better yet, read this.
He’s the only one making noise. I don’t think he’ll be the last one, though. Given that, why not address this through law?
I think it is because of the cumulative effect of his bad behavior.
A survey of state law shows that the states that have drafted or considered legislation addressing this generally apply it to all funerals, not just military ones. Federal law covers those of soldiers, but that may be for jurisdictional purposes.
Then you shouldn’t have a problem with the Patriot Guard. They don’t go to all funerals and you don’t see a need for a group to go to all funerals.
I disagree somewhat. Yes I think that there is some complacency when something doesn’t effect you directly. Some of this was due to homophobia. Most was due to human nature. People shake their heads when they see a family died in a fire. Then they forget about it. That doesn’t make them pro-fire. Phelps didn’t start getting widespread attention when he started impacting more people directly. Just because he got some stories before does not mean he was well known. These things build and he is a master manipulator.
Go phuck yourself. There shouldn’t be any protests at these funerals or any others.
Let me address this also.
I have a problem with this as well, but only because such a law is obviously needed. In the past, even our extremist zealots wouldn’t have gone so far as to disrupt a funeral.
If a law is needed now, it is because in this particular case the societal rules that constrained people like this have completely broken down.
Clearer rules will benefit everyone here. And if Phelps and his band of idiots choose not to live by them, so’s the better. Lock them up.
There is no possible way that a ban on protests at someone’s funeral can be considered a hindrance of political speech. It merely moves that speech to a more appropriate venue.
There is a bit of a difference between picketing a private residence, even if you’re staying on public property (like the street) and picketing a “public accomodation” (e.g., private business open to the public) like a cemetary.
By your rationale, the anti-abortionists should have also been able to be banned from picketing at the actual abortion clinics (another “public accomodation”), which has never happened. They are prevented from interfering with patients entering the clinics (theoretically more than realistically), and from entering the actual premises of the business - but they are NOT prevented from picketing on the sidewalks out in front.
That’s a much more comparable situation.
As I’ve said before on the boards, a military funeral sponsored by the government and held in a public place is at least in part a public expression of a matter of political and public interest. It seems eminently fair to me to allow other, competing political opinions to also be expressed there.
There shouldn’t be crappy television shows, either. Do we need to make it a legal prohibition?