Perhaps. But it does not follow at all that it has to be at the same time.
In any cast, it is clear that what is protected by the First Amendment is the right to peaceably assemble, and the parameters of that are set by law. We are setting out those parameters now in legislation, which is proper to do.
Does anyone here think these rights are absolute? That crowds may do what they wish? That permit regulations, restrictions on impeding traffic, and similar laws are unconstitutional?
Certainly nobody here does, although if they don’t I’d like to hear it. I wonder why this is different. It ensures that the twin messages - those of the funeral and opposition to the funeral - are both heard.
BTW, this is an example of a time where the board is way out of step with the country.
From looking at these bills, they are passing with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support. The federal version passed the House 408 to 3, and the Senate unanimously. Similar figures would show in the state houses, I’ll bet.
Yet here on the boards, only a few defenders of the law show up.
Now, I understand that none of us have to answer to constituents. Still, I find this a bit strange.
You’re right, I misspoke, and I apologize for being too hasty in attempting to make my point.
I should have pointed out that the bereaved (and we, their countrymen) need to be protesting the pig-phuckers in the administration, but not in the context of the families’ obsequies. And Phelps distracts attention away from that need.
Moto, you silly, silly person. This is because the law is something that everyone approves of the motivation behind it. Preventing this cult from protesting at funerals is a good thing. However, much like the laws attempting to prevent video games being sold to minors, they tend to be written in ways that violate the Constitution.
Therefore, what happens is that the government is sued, the law is found unconstitutional, and the plantiff’s legal fees are paid. Lining the plantiff’s pocket.
In this case, where the lawyers would be the plantiff, it becomes quite a several million dollar windfall. And while the idea of the law is good, the fact that it would wind up making the Phelpes rich, is something none of us want.
This money comes out of our taxes, and the state or federal budget. It tends to come from social programs that are already stretched, like Medicaid or homeless services.
Do you understand, or are you so amazingly biased that you fail to comprehend plain english?
I don’t buy your logic, here. How many Americans are directly effected by Phelps protesting a small handful (relative to the total number of dead soldiers coming back from Iraq) of military funerals? This law is motivated because most Americans think that there’s something objectively worse about protesting at the funeral of someone who volunteered for a dangerous job, then there is about protesting the funeral of some poor schmuck who got beaten to death for leaving the wrong kind of bar. How many supporters of the current ban would have been on board a similar ban if it had been proposed when Phelps was just bothering the queers? I suspect you’d have heard a lot more concern for first ammendment rights if this law had been brought up ten years ago.
Obviously? Gotta disagree with you there, because I don’t see any need for this law at all, except to shut up someone who is universally viewed as a deranged asshole. No one else is protesting funerals. This law, regardless of the language used, is targeting Fred Phelps, and no one else. That’s a concept that frankly scares the fuck out of me, and it’s depressing to see how many conservatives like yourself disagree. Phelps isn’t causing measurable, physical harm to anyone. He’s not destroying anyone’s property. All he’s really doing, is hurting people’s feelings and offending their sense of propriety. I’m a liberal, and I don’t think that’s the sort of thing the government should be legislating against. What the hell are you, of all people, doing on the other side of this argument?
The difference between these two situations is that, in the above examples, unrestricted free speech makes it impossible for other citizens to exercise their own constitutional rights, or directly threatens their physical safety. Where in the constitution do we have a right to a quiet funeral? Who is being physically or financially hurt by Phelps’ protests?
Passing laws against Phelps directly adds to his sense of persecution and righteousness. Frankly, I would rather have him prosecuted for protesting at gay funerals, because gays still face bias and hatred, while soldiers are respected, somewhat. Every soldier knows that every day in a war zone might be their last. I think it’s easier to come to terms with that if you’re the person facing it than it is if you’re the soldier’s loved ones. However, seeing as how soldiers enlist by swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and that Constitution includes the First Amendment, Phelps’ actions might be seen as a demonstration of the righteousness of the cause for which these soldiers died. The trick is to counter his hate speech not with restrictions but with still more free speech, in honor of the deceased soldier. Nothing could be a more fitting tribute to men and women who died fighting for their country.
Personally, I’m with those who say that outlawing stuff just because it hurts other people’s feelings and you don’t want to hear it is a bad, bad thing.
Edited to correct for who was actually desecrating the flag.
This being the Pit and all I should curse you out for not reading my posts and getting it completely wrong. I’m against this law poopyhead. Go back and read my post in context. I hope I wasn’t too harsh.
OK, understood. I’ll withdraw my phuck you.
I see you point and I think it has merit but I don’t think it is a black and white as that. Part of it is as you say and part of it is ten years of hard work on the part of WBC trying to get on the news everynight. That and the fact that they have been spreading their protests across the country. It has been a cumulative effect of years of assholery.
I don’t see it a conservative/liberal issue. I don’t talk a lot of politics around here but I am quite conservative on most issues. I am also a 1st amendment absolutist. I don’t like seeing any legal limits on free speech. A lot of conservative I know feel the same way.
Let’s just say right off the bat that flag burning is an entirely separate constitutional issue.
Now, let’s be clear about something right now - nobody is talking about outlawing any kind of protest - just placing a restriction on the time and place when it may occur. This is no different from many other restrictions placed on protests to ensure that they remain peaceful and don’t intrude on the rights of others.
Do you support restrictions on antiabortion protesters so that they may not interfere with women entering a clinic? Around here, it is illegal to burn a cross on public property or the property of another with the intent to intimidate - does this seem reasonable to you? Also around here it is a felony to appear in public masked (with the exception of Halloween costumes, medical or trade masks, or the like). These last two laws were passed to help prevent Klan violence, and was certainly aimed at a specific group, like the law being discussed.
Which of these laws seem reasonable to you? And please note, saying any do makes you hardly a First Amendment absolutist. At that point we merely are debating the scale of the regulation.
Just in the interests of clarity, is there any legislative ‘parameter’ to the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble that you would consider improper? Would it be acceptable to you, for example, if protests were declared illegal in metropolitan areas, or during an election year, to avoid ‘disruption?’
Certainly. Those would be way too broad, and would prevent a group from getting its message across.
In this particular case, the group isn’t prevented from doing so - they are merely prevented from doing so in a way that disrupts the assembly of another group (which, remember, has First Amendment rights of its own).
Fred Phelps can still protest - and can do so even on the day of the funerals. He just cannot do so within a short window on either side in which the funeral itself occurs. The case law indicates that since the restriction allows the group myriad other ways to express itself, including protests at other times, it will probably be seen as reasonable, and constitutional.
They’ve always spread their protests across the country. They didn’t bury Randy Shilts in Westboro. They had to come all the way out here to California to protest that one, and it was hardly their first trip here. I don’t think you can show that this current infamy is the result of a gradual build up of notoriety. He’s been around for years, he’s been in the media for years, he’s been using the same tactics for years. The only thing that’s changed, is that he’s found a new target. I think that’s pretty compelling evidence that the only reason people are now concerned about him, is that he’s targetting soldiers and not homos.
The one positive here is that people who would have been perfectly content to look the other way when he was protesting at gay funerals, are now forced to admit that that was a bad thing, too, which ultimatly helps the gay rights cause. So let’s all take a moment to bask in the smug satisfaction that the only effect Fred Phelps has had on the gay rights movement, is to advance it.
Oh yeah, that felt good.
Right: I’m just surprised that more conservatives don’t feel the same way, as it seems a strongly conservative position to be against outlawing people being mean in public. I’d expect liberals to fall for this sort of nonsense: conservatives, I had thought, would have a bit more spine.
But you are outlawing a specific kind of protest: those that occur at funerals. What’s different about this from other restrictions is that Phelps’s protests do not intrude on the rights of others, or prevent others from going about their normal business.
Yes, because people have a right to have an abortion. But they do have the right to protest within sight of an abortion clinic, and to make their protest audible to those attending the clinic. I would support a law that prevented the Phelpses from storming the cemetary and physically preventing the internment of the deceased, but I’m pretty sure we already have that.
Would you be okay with a law that prevent abortion protestors from being anywhere near an abortion clinic? After all, they can still have their protest in a “more appropriate” time and place, right?
Yes, threats of physical violence are definitly fair game for legislation, and are not protected by freedom of speech, and the first ammendment does not give anyone a pass on trespassing or destruction of property. But Phelps’s protests are on public ground, and cannot be reasonably construed to be a threat of physical violence in the way a cross-burning does.
And that’s a law with which I firmly disagree.
Out of curiousity, I assume that law includes a religious exemption?
Right, sorry, still typing on preview… I guess I should answer your questions while I’m at it:
Yep, but if they’re not interfering, it’s fine.
Nope. If you have someone else’s permission to burn a cross on their property, then by all means go ahead. If not, then it ought to be illegal even if it doesn’t intimidate. Ditto for public property. If it’s permitted to burn a book there, you should be allowed to burn a cross too.
Might could be reasonable, on the assumption that a mask generally intends to mislead in roughly the same sense as wearing a cop uniform if you’re not a cop. I’m not sure about how that one works, honestly.
Basically, that one works because lots of people are only comfortable being Klan members if nobody can see who they are when they go about their nasty business.
But my hypothetical examples don’t prevent any group from getting its message across either. They merely limit the time and place during which protests can occur, to prevent disruption of other groups’ First Amendment rights. It’s the same exact justification.
If they are too broad, then by how much? What are your criteria? If a day is too long, how about twelve hours, or ten? What about keeping protests a mile away from a given event?
Or could it be that 150 feet and an hour’s delay prevents a group from getting its message across?
QED. Each new restriction is precedented by the one before it. There is nothing to stop the time from becoming never, and the place from becoming nowhere. You right-wingers don’t want this either. When the far-left offenderati come to power, you will find their “restrictions” to be unpleasant.
