[QUOTE=acsenray]
Again, a sentence that I don’t understand.
[/QUOTE]
He’s saying that, since there’s only one organization in the US that protests at funerals, any law that outlaws protesting at funerals is therefore directly targeting that group, and by extension, their speech, even if neither is specifically mentioned in the text of the law.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
The federal law seems as narrowly drawn as the Grayned v. City of Rockford precedent. And again, I have to ask you, why may the government protect schoolchildren from a noisy demonstration but not a funeral?
[/QUOTE]
Because the schoolchildren don’t have any other option. The funeral goers could choose to move indoors; they could choose to mourn in their homes, or in a church or other private building. They could even choose to not hold it outside in the first place.
The children do not have that liberty. When the protestors arrive outside, the teachers can’t just say “Alright, everyone, grab your books and we’re off to the soundproofed cellars!”. The only way the kids could avoid that disruption is to be moved to rooms far enough way (which the school may not have) or change schools (which would itself be considerable disruption). And there’s the time issue on top of that; a funeral may last for an hour or hours (Never been to one, so I don’t know). A protest at a school could be there all day. And then come back the next.
So there’s your reason. The children have no other choice but to stay where they are. They have no other option but to sit there for however long the protestors decide to keep it up and be disrupted. The funeral goers, on the other hand, do have other options. It’s a case of one situation being strong enough to warrant an exception and the other not. You’re citing precedent on protesting disrupting students and using it to claim that such exceptions are made - and you’re right, they are. But only when there is no other sensible option.
Frankly, I’m disappointed in Moto’s reliance on the government to know what’s right and wrong, here. He sounds like a nanny-state Democrat like Lieberman. “Limits on our liberties” indeed.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I’ll be happy to try.
First of all, there is a confusion in this thread between public spaces and areas appropriate for public expression. Most posters seem to think they are one and the same. But a moment’s thought shows that this is not the case, and the case law is quite clear on this point - the public space may be managed by law so that public expression may occur at a time or place appropriate to such.
In Grayned v. City of Rockford, the Court upheld a ban on noisemakers at demonstrations in the vicinity of a school where class was in session. This is one of the most similar cases I could find to the ban on noisy funeral demonstrations - and the one that convinces me most of its constitutionality. The Court found that “the ordinance is not vague since, with fair warning, it prohibits only actual or imminent, and willful, interference with normal school activity, and is not a broad invitation to discriminatory enforcement. The ordinance is not overbroad as unduly interfering with First Amendment rights since expressive activity is prohibited only if it ‘materially disrupts classwork.’”
So here we have a case where protests are restricted (not banned, but restricted) in such a way as to not interfere with the rights of others. I have no doubts similar considerations will come into play if the law being discussed is ever challenged in court.
If you have any opinions on why the government may protect students from a noisy demonstration, but not mourners, I’d love to hear it.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, this is at least an argument of sorts. Now… how does this particular case convince you that an exclusive restriction on funeral protests is Constitutional? Your cited case does not seek to dictate the time or place of the demonstration itself; it only addresses noisemakers that materially disrupt classwork. But you have already acknowledged that the material disruption of noise is not the real issue in funeral protests:
If this situation were truly analogous to that of funerals, then such tactics as the Patriot Guard uses would not work, and would in fact be an incredibly stupid idea. Or do you imagine that using the sound of motorcycles to drown out the sound of noisemakers would permit children to complete their classwork more effectively? That noise is disruptive whether the children care about its meaning or not. Contrariwise, if loud noise in general disrupted funerals irrevocably, then there would be no such thing as a rifle salute; and traffic noise would be just as offensive as “God hates fags.” In the school case, the noise itself was the issue; not its content as in funeral protests.
C’mon. You’re playing dumb again. Obviously a noise can be a disruption or not, depending on the type of noise and the circumstance in which it is used. And governments regulate noise all of the time - and do take matters such as this into account.
The cited case, BTW, did take time and place into account - the law in question applied when class was in session, and in proximity to a school. The federal law applies on the grounds of and within 300 feet of Arlington National Cemetery and other cemeteries of the National Cemetery Administration, for a window of one hour flanking the funeral services, which would obviously be gravesite services for these cemeteries, for the most part. The federal law bans picketing, impeding funeral processions, loud protesting, handbill distribution, and many visual displays - but apply only within the time and place provided.
So the laws are quite analogous in that they only restrict a certain form of protest for a certain amount of time in a certain place - all of which leave other avenues for expression wide open.
Also, I have argued in the past that the existence of the Patriot Guard riders can not be used in any way to argue against this law, since without it one may be forced to choose between two kinds of loud funerals, but cannot avail oneself of a quiet one.
Depending on the volume of the protest, or the proximity of the church or cemetery to the street, there may not be a choice for funeral attendees either to avoid protesters. Therefore, their only option may be a law fashioned after one that protects schoolchildren, and has been found constitutional already.
Now, I ask again, Congress has seen military funerals as worthy of protection, and many state laws now protect funerals generally. Given the case law on the subject, and I don’t think I am cherrypicking cases here, why does this board as a whole feel this law is unconstitutional when all the evidence I see points the other way.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
C’mon. You’re playing dumb again. Obviously a noise can be a disruption or not, depending on the type of noise and the circumstance in which it is used. And governments regulate noise all of the time - and do take matters such as this into account.
[/quote]
No, I’m not the one playing dumb here. And yes, governments regulate noise all the time – those are called anti-noise ordinances. I bet that Phelps’ protests don’t violate any of them, or his people would be prosecuted for it.
Jesus Christ, and you accuse me of playing dumb? Your cited case banned noisemakers during school hours, to prevent material disruption of classes. The protest law bans not only loud protesting (but only protesting? Loud cheering, Lynyrd Skynyrd or clown noises are still OK?) but also forms of expression that couldn’t possibly affect the funeral itself at all? And do you propose that unsolicited visual displays expressing support for the deceased within that time and place should also be punished by law? You actually percieve no difference between regulating sound and regulating speech?
Yes, they are analagous in that respect. So is a law that restricts all speech and printed materials hostile to the governor of Minnesota during even-numbered years. Guess what-- that doesn’t mean the three laws are remotely comparable otherwise.
But even with this law, people will still be forced to endure loud funerals, because no other variety of noise has ever been singled out as uniquely harmful to funerals. And what about protests that wish to distribute handbills, picket, set up visual displays, but eschew loud noise entirely? They’ll be illegal too.
That law was found constitutional because classes can’t be conducted at all if the students can’t hear. You’ve repeatedly acknowledged that funerals may occur whether protesters are present or not. You’re only trying to shield the tender feelings of the mourners.
That brings up another good point. I find it curious that it took you four pages to even get around to mentioning Grayned v. City of Rockford in defense of your position. In addition to your earlier offered-then-abandoned arguments about First Amendment rights and ‘fighting words,’ all this sort of gives the impression of grasping at any straw that might appear to support your personal objection to funeral protests, rather than arguing out of any real concern over Constitutional rights or legal issues. So: yes, you are cherrypicking, and rather transparently at that.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Because the schoolchildren don’t have any other option. The funeral goers could choose to move indoors; they could choose to mourn in their homes, or in a church or other private building. They could even choose to not hold it outside in the first place.
The children do not have that liberty. When the protestors arrive outside, the teachers can’t just say “Alright, everyone, grab your books and we’re off to the soundproofed cellars!”. The only way the kids could avoid that disruption is to be moved to rooms far enough way (which the school may not have) or change schools (which would itself be considerable disruption). And there’s the time issue on top of that; a funeral may last for an hour or hours (Never been to one, so I don’t know). A protest at a school could be there all day. And then come back the next.
So there’s your reason. The children have no other choice but to stay where they are. They have no other option but to sit there for however long the protestors decide to keep it up and be disrupted. The funeral goers, on the other hand, do have other options. It’s a case of one situation being strong enough to warrant an exception and the other not. You’re citing precedent on protesting disrupting students and using it to claim that such exceptions are made - and you’re right, they are. But only when there is no other sensible option.
[/QUOTE]
Slight nitpick here - memorials can certainly be held indoors, at a church, home, legion hall, whatever. However, in 99.9% of funerals involving interrment, the dead are buried outdoors, usually at an organized burial ground of some sort. There’s not really any way around this, other than opting not to go with interrment at all and choosing an avenue like cremation or bodily donation instead. So if someone is being buried outside, with family, friends, and clergy in attendance, the mourners don’t really have any other place to go until the deceased is placed in the grave. They can’t just decide to bury the dead in the church basement instead.
I’m not even going to attempt to figure out what difference this makes in a legal sense, nor am I going to get into the thick of the constitutional debate going on, but there it is. I think we can all agree that taking advantage of a person’s demonstration of mourning for the purposes of strenghthening one’s position within a tight, xenophobic social circle is pretty abhorrent, whether or not it truly warrants legal intervention.
I have conceded that it is a restriction on protest. However, the question, and the one for the courts, is whether this restriction is an undue one.
Given the case law in place, which few of you are actually addressing, the answer seems to be no.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
That brings up another good point. I find it curious that it took you four pages to even get around to mentioning Grayned v. City of Rockford in defense of your position. In addition to your earlier offered-then-abandoned arguments about First Amendment rights and ‘fighting words,’ all this sort of gives the impression of grasping at any straw that might appear to support your personal objection to funeral protests, rather than arguing out of any real concern over Constitutional rights or legal issues. So: yes, you are cherrypicking, and rather transparently at that.
[/QUOTE]
Fuck you. I am not a lawyer, and while I do have great respect for case law I do not know it by rote. If I have to look it up as I go, you’ll just have to cut me some slack on that.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Who are you to judge?
[/quote]
Then what is this discussion all about? Why bother expressing your opinion at all if when someone tries to pin down your logic and analysis to the real world of law you’re just going to throw your hands up and say, “Well who knows?”
I don’t see “rights of the bereaved to be protected from people expressing political views in a public place” anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. However, freedom of expression is right there at No. 1. Ergo, the first is not a fundamental right and the second one is. It’s not even a close contest.
All legislative actions that infringe upon a fundamental right are subject to constitutional tests (in this case, strict scrutiny). What exactly do you think the Bill of Rights is there for? What do you think constitutional law is all about? Yes, the Supreme Court will look and see what the legislature argues in support of the law, but, in this case, as I said, it’s not even close. There is no way the right you are expounding constitutes a compelling governmental interest (which includes things like national security), or even an important one (which is the standard for intermediate scrutiny, not applicable in free speech cases).
Again, your false comparisons. They’re not “protecting” schoolchildren. They are preventing something that will, in effect, prevent education altogether. The Phelps activities do not, in effect, prevent people from conducting funerals. The bulk of the funeral is held indoors, as has been reported in this thread, and thus the protesters have no impact at all on the bulk of the funeral.
[QUOTE=Intravenus De Milo]
Slight nitpick here - memorials can certainly be held indoors, at a church, home, legion hall, whatever. However, in 99.9% of funerals involving interrment, the dead are buried outdoors, usually at an organized burial ground of some sort. There’s not really any way around this, other than opting not to go with interrment at all and choosing an avenue like cremation or bodily donation instead. So if someone is being buried outside, with family, friends, and clergy in attendance, the mourners don’t really have any other place to go until the deceased is placed in the grave. They can’t just decide to bury the dead in the church basement instead.
[/QUOTE]
This is true. But the reasoning brought up by **Moto ** wasn’t a need to see the body buried, but a need to mourn. Placing the body in a grave isn’t an activity that is disrupted by protestors, it’s the mourning that is. I’ d be all for a law that stops protestors physically disrupting the burial itself, but I think there probably already is one. Since the funeral goers can mourn somewhere else, and the actual burial isn’t disrupted, I don’t see it as being a no-option situation being disrupted.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
The Phelps activities do not, in effect, prevent people from conducting funerals. The bulk of the funeral is held indoors, as has been reported in this thread, and thus the protesters have no impact at all on the bulk of the funeral.
[/QUOTE]
The rendering of appropriate military honors is typically done at the gravesite. As you know, this involves the folding of the flag and its presentation, the rendering of a gun salute, and the playing of taps.
The Phelps activities thus would not prevent perhaps the bulk of the funeral, but would severely interfere with a very important part of it, and one to which the recipient is entitled to by law.