Funeral protest ban passes Senate

[bigred]

Dear ACLU: shove this up your protest sign you POSs

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/24/military.funerals.ap/index.html

:thumbsup:

How heart-warming to know that at least some people get that freedoms are not and should not be absolute.

[HarryKeogh]

Dear ACLU: shove this up your protest sign you POSs.

Whoa, for a second there I thought I logged on to Rapture Ready but then I saw you didn't make any reference to the Anti-Christ or Communists.

Interesting... passing legislation to basically stop one church of wackos, whose whole congregation is pretty much one family, from protesting. Unnecessary but at least it gives some politicians some good PR.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Rather than directing legislation at some Church of Nutjobs, wouldn't it be more encompassing to pass a more general amendment to limit speech promoting hate against an identifiable group?

Charlie (not unlike Canada) Monoxide

[Upchurch]

I sympathise with the intent of this bill, but it is the wrong thing to do and should ultimately be found unconstitutional.

Interesting... passing legislation to basically stop one church of wackos, whose whole congregation is pretty much one family, from protesting. Unnecessary but at least it gives some politicians some good PR.
Aside from being unconstitutional, imho, having a law that is specifically targeting a specific group or individual (either Phelps or Schiavo(sp?)) should be a red-flag that the law is a generally bad thing.

[BPSCG]

I sympathise with the intent of this bill, but it is the wrong thing to do and should ultimately be found unconstitutional. On what grounds?

Aside from being unconstitutional, imho, having a law that is specifically targeting a specific group or individual (either Phelps or Schiavo(sp?)) should be a red-flag that the law is a generally bad thing.I haven't read the bill, but I'll bet it doesn't target one group. It likely targets any group that wants to carry on demonstrations at a funeral (if you want to target one group or individual, you get a court injunction). There may only be one group that does it now, but if this is ultimately found unconstitutional, there will be more.

Goddammit, your right to free speech has limits. It may be hard to draw a sharp, bright line between speech that is protected and speech that isn't, but as far as I'm concerned, this is clearly over that line. If the right to privacy protects the right to have an abortion, and it protects the right to homosexual sex, then it surely protects the right to have a funeral unmolested by people who hate you.

[.13.]

Not being an American myself my input may not weigh much. In my opinion the bill doesn't really go against freedom of speech. They can continue their protests and say all the same things they have been saying but just further away from the actual funeral.

Also a question: Why only military funerals are included?

[Kiwiwriter]

I read about him and his church in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine Intelligence Report.

His "church" consists of his family members, all 75 of them. He "was fruitful and multiplied." He was also disbarred.

In his previous life, as a college professor, he was so wacky, he was told: get psychiatric help or be fired. He refused to get his head shrunk. So he got the axe.

Apparently, he and his troops know what they're doing is hateful...but it's designed to get attention. Like most small children, saying dirty words at the family dinner.

[Manny]

I still think this is better taken care of by asskicking than legislation. If legislation is necessary it should simply say that if one uses "fighting words" as per the Supreme Court doctrine than one has no legal recourse if one subsequently finds oneself in a fight.

[ImaginalDisc]

I still think this is better taken care of by asskicking than legislation. If legislation is necessary it should simply say that if one uses "fighting words" as per the Supreme Court doctrine than one has no legal recourse if one subsequently finds oneself in a fight.

I'm with Manny on this one. I don't find anything encouraging about the Senate telling specific people to shut up, regardless of how insulting their message is.

[HarryKeogh]

I'm with Manny on this one. I don't find anything encouraging about the Senate telling specific people to shut up, regardless of how insulting their message is.

Yep, I happen to like the work these guys do...


In response to the demonstrations, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcyle group including many veterans, has begun appearing at military funerals to pay respects to the fallen service member and protect the family from disruptions.


same source as OP

[Upchurch]

I haven't read the bill, but I'll bet it doesn't target one group. It likely targets any group that wants to carry on demonstrations at a funeral (if you want to target one group or individual, you get a court injunction). There may only be one group that does it now, but if this is ultimately found unconstitutional, there will be more.
Well, I haven't read the bill either, so I could be way off base. I am assuming that the bill was written with Phelp's & Co. in mind, targeting them in the same general way that "JREF Forum Admins who live in Missouri" doesn't specify a rather specialized group of people (or individual as the case may be).

But I conceed the point. I don't know enough to make that claim.

On what grounds?

{snippy}

Goddammit, your right to free speech has limits. It may be hard to draw a sharp, bright line between speech that is protected and speech that isn't, but as far as I'm concerned, this is clearly over that line. If the right to privacy protects the right to have an abortion, and it protects the right to homosexual sex, then it surely protects the right to have a funeral unmolested by people who hate you.The difference here, I think, lies in the fact that you are restricting what private citizens can do or say on public land. The two examples you give are cases that concern restricting what private citizens can do or say in private places. In other words, protesters have no right being in a doctor's office or the bedroom. The do have the right to be on the sidewalk outside a cemetary, no matter how vile their message is.

Now, I suppose you could argue that they are inflicting harm on the mourners, which would be another issue entirely.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, I haven't read the bill either, so I could be way off base. I am assuming that the bill was written with Phelp's & Co. in mind, targeting them in the same general way that "JREF Forum Admins who live in Missouri" doesn't specify a rather specialized group of people (or individual as the case may be).Well, it's not quite that specific. Your analogy specifically names an organization; a better analogy would be a law about organizations that offer million dollar prizes to anyone who can prove a supernatural ability.

The difference here, I think, lies in the fact that you are restricting what private citizens can do or say on public land. Or even private land; as I read it, if you own a house that's within 300 feet of a cemetary, you're not allowed to protest on your own property. Granted, there probably aren't very many people who own a house within 300 feet of a cemetary, but does this only apply to cemetaries? If your next door neighbor has a wake in their house, can you protest it?

Rather than directing legislation at some Church of Nutjobs, wouldn't it be more encompassing to pass a more general amendment to limit speech promoting hate against an identifiable group? That would be an incredibly stupid law, since the law itself would be promoting hate against people like Phelps, and would therefore be illegal. I firmly believe that there are groups against whom hate should be promoted, and preventing this is an affront to democracy.

On what grounds?First Amendment.

If the right to privacy protects the right to have an abortion, and it protects the right to homosexual sex, then it surely protects the right to have a funeral unmolested by people who hate you.That's just sophistry. You have the right to an abortion in the sense that the government can't prevent you from having one. You don't have the right to an abortion in the sense that you can force someone else to give you one. You have the right to a protest free funeral in the sense that the government can't prevent you from having one. You don't have the right to a protest free funeral in thsense that you can force someone else to give you one.

Not being an American myself my input may not weigh much. In my opinion the bill doesn't really go against freedom of speech. They can continue their protests and say all the same things they have been saying but just further away from the actual funeral.But that's still restricting free speech.

Also a question: Why only military funerals are included?Where did you get that?

[Upchurch]

Well, it's not quite that specific. Your analogy specifically names an organization; a better analogy would be a law about organizations that offer million dollar prizes to anyone who can prove a supernatural ability.Fair enough.

Or even private land; as I read it, if you own a house that's within 300 feet of a cemetary, you're not allowed to protest on your own property. Granted, there probably aren't very many people who own a house within 300 feet of a cemetary, but does this only apply to cemetaries? If your next door neighbor has a wake in their house, can you protest it?Which would make it all the less constitutional, imho.

Can you provide the relevent text of the bill, or a link to it?

[jj]

So, if somebody has a loud wake next door, within 300 feet, and I shout "will you guys keep it down" out the window, does that trigger this law?

[hgc]

I think this is terrible law, along the lines of anti-flag-burning laws. Limiting speech based on offensiveness is unamerican. It's one thing for private citizens to behave badly, like the Phelps clan's antics. It much worse for the government to do it by limiting speech based on hurt feelings.

[BPSCG]

See (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH)Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH).

[Cylinder]

The text of the bill can be found here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5037).

No person may carry out--
(1) a demonstration on the property of a cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or on the property of Arlington National Cemetery unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located; or

(2) with respect to such a cemetery, a demonstration during the period beginning 60 minutes before and ending 60 minutes after a funeral, memorial service, or ceremony is held, any part of which demonstration--

(A)(i) takes place within 150 feet of a road, pathway, or other route of ingress to or egress from such cemetery property; and

(ii) includes, as part of such demonstration, any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the funeral, memorial service, or ceremony; or

(B) is within 300 feet of such cemetery and impedes the access to or egress from such cemetery.

Follow the link to review the statutory definition of demonstration. I think the act comes reasonably close to good legislation.

[Meffy]

I still think this is better taken care of by asskicking than legislation. If legislation is necessary it should simply say that if one uses "fighting words" as per the Supreme Court doctrine than one has no legal recourse if one subsequently finds oneself in a fight.
Works (after a fashion) if there are big bruisers on the offended side and none on the abusing side. Suppose Phelps brings a muscular nut who's spoiling for a fight and/or the funeral attendees aren't up to a battle? Appears to me that the funeral party have no way to enforce their rights. It turns into "whoever is stronger (or more ready to resort to violence) wins."

[Tony]

Dear ACLU: shove this up your protest sign you POSs

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/....ap/index.html

This is rich, the other day you were whining over how the ACLU wasn't defending free-speech:


They are obviously NOT "defending people saying things they don't like" - quite the opposite in fact; they are attacking people saying things they don't like (ie what they call "hate speech").

They make me ill.

Not you're crying that they might defend free-speech. It's also telling that you call people defending your constitutional right to be a moron "POS's". Stop drinking the mercury dude.

How heart-warming to know that at least some people get that freedoms are not and should not be absolute.

Freedoms are absolute.

[Tony]

On what grounds?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Goddammit, your right to free speech has limits.

No it doesn't.

[Manny]

Works (after a fashion) if there are big bruisers on the offended side and none on the abusing side. Suppose Phelps brings a muscular nut who's spoiling for a fight and/or the funeral attendees aren't up to a battle? Appears to me that the funeral party have no way to enforce their rights. It turns into "whoever is stronger (or more ready to resort to violence) wins."That's important in places like Somalia. In the US if you can't get at least a few asskickers on your side you're pretty much wrong. We've got guns here.

That said, it appears from Cylinder that the law only applies on federal cemetaries. I have no objection to the federal government regulating its own property.

[Tony]

That said, it appears from Cylinder that the law only applies on federal cemetaries. I have no objection to the federal government regulating its own property.

It's not Federal property. It's tax-payer/public property.

[DanishDynamite]

Dear ACLU: shove this up your protest sign you POSs

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/24/military.funerals.ap/index.html

:thumbsup:

How heart-warming to know that at least some people get that freedoms are not and should not be absolute.
How sad.

The very last resting place of those who fought to protect the freedoms embodied in the Constitution, has been designated as off-limits for those freedoms.

Rest in pieces, soldiers.

[The Mutha]

I'm a member of the Patriot Guard Riders and we're excited about the new law because it may mean that we're not necessary anymore. However, from a logical standpoint, I think that the law will be overturned on appeal for free speech reasons. So, we've almost managed to pass a law against protests at military funerals, but what about non-military? This wacko fundie group made it's original national press coverage by protesting at Matthew Shepherd's funeral, where are they going to go next?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

IMHO, the law seems fairly reasonable and not particularly restrictive. It says you cannot protest without approval from the cemetary, and cannot protest 60 minutes before or after a funeral. If you want to protest, you can still do it. You just have to wait for the funeral to end. That doesn't strike me as a particularly large affront to free speech.

[BPSCG]

Freedoms are absolute.:jaw-dropp
No it doesn't.:jaw-dropp

Freedom of speech has no limits?

Hey, Tony, why don't you test that hypothesis by sending a death threat to the president? See how absolute your right to free speech is.

Let us know how it goes when you get back. We'll be here.

[Kerberos]

I haven't read the bill, but I'll bet it doesn't target one group. It likely targets any group that wants to carry on demonstrations at a funeral (if you want to target one group or individual, you get a court injunction). There may only be one group that does it now, but if this is ultimately found unconstitutional, there will be more.

Goddammit, your right to free speech has limits. It may be hard to draw a sharp, bright line between speech that is protected and speech that isn't, but as far as I'm concerned, this is clearly over that line. If the right to privacy protects the right to have an abortion, and it protects the right to homosexual sex, then it surely protects the right to have a funeral unmolested by people who hate you.
Except that the law doesn't protect you form having people disturb your funeral. It only protects military funerals. So if Phelps decides to disturb say gay funerals he can still do that, as long as the dead gay wasn't in the army.

[BPSCG]

Except that the law doesn't protect you form having people disturb your funeral. It only protects military funerals. So if Phelps decides to disturb say gay funerals he can still do that, as long as the dead gay wasn't in the army.But IIRC, the federal law is modeled after a state law, so it shouldn't be hard for laws like this to become widespread on the state level. And, again, see Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH) regarding the absence of constitutional protection for "fighting words."

[The Mutha]

Several states have passed similar laws, including Texas just a few weeks ago. State laws usually decree that protesting can't be done within 300 feet of the funeral procession or site, IIRC. Given that the PGR does not attend funerals that we are not specifically invited too, we're invited guests so we can be as close as the family members want us to be.

I may not agree with this war or why we went into it, but I damn sure don't think it's fair to have any family member of a dead soldier have to hear some idiot screaming that the death is God's retribution for America embracing homosexuality.

[BPSCG]

Several states have passed similar laws, including Texas just a few weeks ago. State laws usually decree that protesting can't be done within 300 feet of the funeral procession or site, IIRC. Given that the PGR does not attend funerals that we are not specifically invited too, we're invited guests so we can be as close as the family members want us to be.

I may not agree with this war or why we went into it, but I damn sure don't think it's fair to have any family member of a dead soldier have to hear some idiot screaming that the death is God's retribution for America embracing homosexuality.Question: I visited y'all's web site, and poked around briefly on the news page. Do you know if there are any other groups other than Phelp's church that are picketing funerals? I only saw mention of Westboro Baptist Church, but I didn't search too hard.

[Kerberos]

That's important in places like Somalia. In the US if you can't get at least a few asskickers on your side you're pretty much wrong. We've got guns here.
Yeah and it's not like the other side would consider bringing guns to, nop sir, American guns works only for the good guys. Do you know if anybody has patentated that nifty little invention?

That said, it appears from Cylinder that the law only applies on federal cemetaries. I have no objection to the federal government regulating its own property.
But god forbid that they take away people's freedom of speech. It's OK to shot people who say thing you don't like, but if the governement passes a law why that's tyrrany. Also it would interfere with you ability to stage your own little version of OK Corral.

[Darat]

Without knowing exactly the wording and how it will end up being enforced it's a little bit hard to say whether this is a good or bad law but in principle it seems to be the sort of thing governments should be dealing with.

The reason I say that is because it is in fact a dispute over personal rights.

There are two groups that in principle share the same right i.e. to express themselves in a way they wish to. However since their ways of expressing themselves are mutually exclusive someone or some institute has to make a decision as to whose rights should be given precedence in such a circumstances.

[pgwenthold]

That's important in places like Somalia. In the US if you can't get at least a few asskickers on your side you're pretty much wrong. We've got guns here.

That said, it appears from Cylinder that the law only applies on federal cemetaries. I have no objection to the federal government regulating its own property.

There is also something about "within 150 ft (or 300 ft) of the road or egress into the cemetary."

Sidewalks are clearly public land. As long as they don't interfere with people entering or leaving, there are no grounds for the government to prevent them from being there in protest.

[BPSCG]

There are two groups that in principle share the same right i.e. to express themselves in a way they wish to. However since their ways of expressing themselves are mutually exclusive someone or some institute has to make a decision as to whose rights should be given precedence in such a circumstances.No, you've got it all wrong. Freedoms are absolute (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1662892#post1662892). Both sides have an absolute right to their mutually conflicting rights.

Okay, I have to go now, because I feel like my head is going to explode trying to wrap my brain around that...

[The Mutha]

BPSCG -- Nope, the only group that protests funerals that I'm aware of is the Phelps clan.

PGR started in Kansas, where the Phelps cult has their "church". Basically what started out as a couple of veterans who ride motorcycles getting together specifically because of this one group, has become an international organization that goes to any funeral or memorial service that we're invited too. You'll find that quite a few of this group are Vietnam-era and recall how they were treated when they came back or how they saw others being treated. A great number have family members currently serving. All of us want to pay our respects for those soldiers who have died. And I'm sure you'll find some folk who just want another excuse to get out and ride their motorcycles... :D

We've been invited to funerals of Vietnam vets, WWII vets, Desert Storm vets -- not just the current situation.

I agree that this wack-job group has the right to protest under the pretense of the freedom of speech clause. It's sad that they truly believe that they are right in their actions, but some may think what our group is doing is wrong as well (although I've not found anybody who expressed that sentiment yet).

[Meffy]

I agree that this wack-job group has the right to protest under the pretense of the freedom of speech clause.
Protection, not pretense. Much as I loathe the Phelps bunch, for freedom of speech to be meaningful it's got to apply to them as well as people I agree with. That's why I support the ACLU even when they defend people whose political movements would like to see my kind exterminated. They have the right to preach evil... but not to do evil. In the case of funeral protests I think they're treading BOTH sides of the line between preach and do. Makes for a mighty tough nut to crack. :-S

It's sad that they truly believe that they are right in their actions, but some may think what our group is doing is wrong as well (although I've not found anybody who expressed that sentiment yet).
You'll not find one here either. You have my thanks, gratitude (on others' behalf), and admiration for your service.

[BPSCG]

They have the right to preach evil... but not to do evil. In the case of funeral protests I think they're treading BOTH sides of the line between preach and do. Makes for a mighty tough nut to crack.I don't think so. Telling mourners that their deceased loved one deserved to die, that God hates him, and that he's going to hell, clearly amounts to "fighting words" (if it doesn't, I can't imagine what would). This, from the above-linked Chaplinsky decision, sums it up very well: It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
[fn] 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906 . . . ."

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't think so. Telling mourners that their deceased loved one deserved to die, that God hates him, and that he's going to hell, clearly amounts to "fighting words" (if it doesn't, I can't imagine what would). This, from the above-linked Chaplinsky decision, sums it up very well:

The fighting words interpretation has fallen into disfavor lately, but this is definately a circumstance where it might apply.

[Tony]

Hey, Tony, why don't you test that hypothesis by sending a death threat to the president? See how absolute your right to free speech is.

Let us know how it goes when you get back. We'll be here.

That is weak logic.

Just because a government doesn't recognize a freedom doesn't mean the freedom doesn't exist.

[hgc]

That is weak logic.

Just because a government doesn't recognize a freedom doesn't mean the freedom doesn't exist.I wouldn't phrase it that way, in my interpretation. I think it does mean that the freedom doesn't exist, but not that it shouldn't exist. Freedom does or does not exist in concrete terms. Abstract freedoms are just that -- abstract. Freedom is an exercise, and experience, and not a thing bequeathed from the gods (or the constitution, for that matter), so to speak.

[HeavyAaron]

Golly guys... High School civics... freedom of speech isn't a right but a liberty. The first amendment lists LIBERTIES, not RIGHTS. Liberties have limits, rights do not. Both are subclasses of freedoms. There are numerous SCOTUS cases defining the limits of the liberties of the first amendment.

Aaron

[ImaginalDisc]

Golly guys... High School civics... freedom of speech isn't a right but a liberty. The first amendment lists LIBERTIES, not RIGHTS. Liberties have limits, rights do not. Both are subclasses of freedoms. There are numerous SCOTUS cases defining the limits of the liberties of the first amendment.

Aaron

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Please hang up and try again.

[BPSCG]

Freedom is an exercise, and experience, and not a thing bequeathed from the gods (or the constitution, for that matter), so to speak.But what Tony is claiming is that freedom -all freedom - is absolute. And that is nonsensical. Because if any one freedom is absolute, all other freedoms are limited to whatever extent that they come into conflict with the absolute one.

[BPSCG]

Golly guys... High School civics... freedom of speech isn't a right but a liberty. The first amendment lists LIBERTIES, not RIGHTS. Liberties have limits, rights do not. Both are subclasses of freedoms. There are numerous SCOTUS cases defining the limits of the liberties of the first amendmentSo why is it called the Bill of Rights?

[Tony]

And that is nonsensical. Because if any one freedom is absolute, all other freedoms are limited to whatever extent that they come into conflict with the absolute one.

That is nonsensical, it's also false.

[BPSCG]

But what Tony is claiming is that freedom -all freedom - is absolute. And that is nonsensical. Because if any one freedom is absolute, all other freedoms are limited to whatever extent that they come into conflict with the absolute one.

That is nonsensical, it's also false.You'll have to do better than that, laddie. Explain why what I wrote is nonsensical. If you can.

[Tony]

You'll have to do better than that, laddie. Explain why what I wrote is nonsensical. If you can.

No, you'll have to do better. You made the claim that:

Because if any one freedom is absolute, all other freedoms are limited to whatever extent that they come into conflict with the absolute one.

You explain how it makes sense.

[BPSCG]

No, you'll have to do better. You made the claim that:



You explain how it makes sense.Jeezum Crow, Tony...

Okay, let's start with a couple of definitions of "absolute" I hacked out of dictionary.com, that appear to be consistent with what you intended:


Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence.So when you talk about rights being "absolute," you are saying they are "not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional." Or you are saying they are "unqualified in extent or degree; total."

The essence of what you are saying is that they are infinite in scope.

So if you have the absolute right to free speech, it means you can do more than disagree with me here, you can do more than write to your congressman and call him a horse's ass. Your absolute right to free speech gives you the right to send death threats to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to shout fire in a crowded theater, to incite riot and insurrection, to post a website listing an abortion doctor's name and address and encourage people to go kill him, to use your top secret government clearance to publish national security information that will get people killed, to plaigiarize freely, to slander and libel public figures... need I go on?

And, because your right is absolute, nobody has the right to stop you, because that would interfere with your absolute right.

That's nonsensical.

[HeavyAaron]

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Please hang up and try again.

So why is it called the Bill of Rights?

Because the English language, especially the legal language, has evolved in the 200+ years. As well, there's no doubt the terms liberties and rights are often used interchangably, unless a distinction is being made. And clearly here we seem to need to be using the terms to distinguish those liberties that have limits and those rights that do not.

Aaron

[ImaginalDisc]

Because the English language, especially the legal language, has evolved in the 200+ years. As well, there's no doubt the terms liberties and rights are often used interchangably, unless a distinction is being made. And clearly here we seem to need to be using the terms to distinguish those liberties that have limits and those rights that do not.

Aaron

Are you honestly sayig that Bill of Rights included no rights? Strictly speaking, it secures our rights against restriction by the government, but it nonetheless based on rights, such as the right to swift and fair trial, and proetection from unreasonable search and seisure.

[wolfgirl]

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Please hang up and try again.I suppose the case could be (and probably has been) made that they are not "peaceably" assembling. Holding up signs telling people their recently deceased loved one deserved to die and is burning in hell isn't exactly a peaceable act, is it?

(I live in western Missouri near the Kansas border, and we've been dealing with these kooks for a long time now. Once you've seen them in action, you'll want to kill them. They protested at an Elton John concert I went to a few years ago, saying that Princess Di was burning in hell...not sure why, I guess because she was friends with Elton? These people (and I use the term loosely)'s entire lives seem to be consumed with the gay issue. To them, everything is about being gay. It's all they talk about. It's all they do. It's behind every action and protest. What a sad life.)

[HeavyAaron]

Are you honestly sayig that Bill of Rights included no rights? Strictly speaking, it secures our rights against restriction by the government, but it nonetheless based on rights, such as the right to swift and fair trial, and proetection from unreasonable search and seisure.

I said the FIRST Amendment listed liberties, not rights. The rights you list are not found in the first amendment.

Aaron

[ImaginalDisc]

I suppose the case could be (and probably has been) made that they are not "peaceably" assembling. Holding up signs telling people their recently deceased loved one deserved to die and is burning in hell isn't exactly a peaceable act, is it?


They're also not assembling on gervernment property, and I wasn't defending them. What I was doing was pointing out that Aaron's claim that the Bill of Rights doesn't secure any rights is balderdash.

[ImaginalDisc]

I said the FIRST Amendment listed liberties, not rights. The rights you list are not found in the first amendment.

Aaron

I'm sorry, what was that?

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Please hang up and try again.

[Art Vandelay]

Jeezum Crow, Tony...

Okay, let's start with a couple of definitions of "absolute" I hacked out of dictionary.com, that appear to be consistent with what you intended:


Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence.So when you talk about rights being "absolute," you are saying they are "not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional." Or you are saying they are "unqualified in extent or degree; total."

The essence of what you are saying is that they are infinite in scope.So does the phrase "absolute silence" refer to silence that is infinite in scope? Does it refer to silence that exists in every place and every time?

[jj]

So does the phrase "absolute silence" refer to silence that is infinite in scope? Does it refer to silence that exists in every place and every time?

#define PEDANT_STRIKES_AGAIN 1

Just to remind you all, "absolute silence" can only happen at absolute zero, in an absolute vacuum. Any other situation will create at least small variations in a diaphram stretched across otherwise empty space. Even photons. Even neutrinos once in a while.

[HeavyAaron]

They're also not assembling on gervernment property, and I wasn't defending them. What I was doing was pointing out that Aaron's claim that the Bill of Rights doesn't secure any rights is balderdash.

For crying in the mud! That's not my claim! If you choose to not pay attention that's not my problem. You are free to reread what I said more carefully or not. But don't misrepresent me.

Aaron

[ImaginalDisc]

For crying in the mud! That's not my claim! If you choose to not pay attention that's not my problem. You are free to reread what I said more carefully or not. But don't misrepresent me.

Aaron

I direct you to post #42.

[HeavyAaron]

I direct you to post #42.

And how, in post #42 (which isn't even mine) do I make a claim about the Bill of Rights, which isn't even listed in post #42?

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Tell you what, I'll make your life even easier. I'll name a right listed in the Bill of Rights. We have the right to not have soldiers forcably quartered in our homes.

Happy?

Aaron

[ImaginalDisc]

And how, in post #42 (which isn't even mine) do I make a claim about the Bill of Rights, which isn't even listed in post #42?

Aaron

That's where I quoted your absurd claim, and responded to it. Clearly, you must have missed it. Excuse me, I'm going to go exersize my right to gather in public places.

[HeavyAaron]

That's where I quoted your absurd claim, and responded to it. Clearly, you must have missed it. Excuse me, I'm going to go exersize my right to gather in public places.

Yes, I claim that the First Amendment is a list of liberties. My claim is about the FIRST AMENDMENT. Not the whole bloody Bill of Rights as you keep misstating. I.e. freedoms with limitations, which includes public gatherings. They are limited, you know?

From legal-dictionary.com, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/liberty

liberty n. freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public

Aaron

[hgc]

But what Tony is claiming is that freedom -all freedom - is absolute. And that is nonsensical. Because if any one freedom is absolute, all other freedoms are limited to whatever extent that they come into conflict with the absolute one.Yeah, I can't follow that. It's not as if "freedom" or "rights" are solid objects (even in any metaphorical sense). They are ways of describing certain norms of behavior that are variously practiced, suppressed, aspired to, and so on. The constitution enumerates certain rights, but that in and of itself doesn't make it come true. It's the practice of those rights, unhindered, that make it real. It comes about in the decision by the power structure of the society to let what's articulated in the constitution as rights be practiced within the parameters of some prevailing interpretation.

[ImaginalDisc]

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Aaron, just take a wild guess as to which ammendment that's from.

[pgwenthold]

Yes, I claim that the First Amendment is a list of liberties. My claim is about the FIRST AMENDMENT.

Can you remind me what the first amendment says?

[HeavyAaron]

Aaron, just take a wild guess as to which ammendment that's from.

I've already addressed that in post #49. And unless you're prepared to claim that you can assemble anywhere, anytime, with anyone, without restrictions, it's A LIBERTY. I've provided the definition for you.

Golly, I thought I was the strict constitutionalist.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Can you remind me what the first amendment says?

I'd make a snide remark about Google, but I'm sure you're also driving at the right to assemble in there.

But because I love our Constitution and it can't possibly be written in enough places, here you go:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And if you'd like an abridged version of the virtual first amendment check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_first_amendment

The virtual version includes many of the exclusions, caveots, etc. because it's a list of LIBERTIES! The other amendments in the Bill of Rights don't have virtual versions because they are rights.

*sigh* If you have H.S. children, I suggest checking out their US government textbooks. This really isn't supposed to have been contriversial. I was just trying to supply proper diction to clarify the debate.

Aaron

[ImaginalDisc]

I've already addressed that in post #49. And unless you're prepared to claim that you can assemble anywhere, anytime, with anyone, without restrictions, it's A LIBERTY. I've provided the definition for you.

Golly, I thought I was the strict constitutionalist.

Aaron

Aaron, the Bill of Rights restrict the actions of the government, not private citizens. I could be booted out of this privately owned forum at any time for any reason, and the Bill of rights would not apply.

Aaron, when you interject by saying that people need remedial instruction in civics, it behooves you to have the least clue what you are talking about.

[HeavyAaron]

Aaron, the Bill of Rights restrict the actions of the government, not private citizens. I could be booted out of this privately owned forum at any time for any reason, and the Bill of rights would not apply.

Aaron, when you interject by saying that people need remedial instruction in civics, it behooves you to have the least clue what you are talking about.

Okay, so you're claiming you can assemble freely anytime, anywhere, with anyone and the GOVERNMENT can't say a thing about it? Umm... wrong. Have you heard of "Free Speech Zones?" Or, for one regarding association try Adler vs. Board of Education.

Simply because you think I'm wrong doesn't make me so. :rolleyes:

Aaron

[pgwenthold]

I'd make a snide remark about Google, but I'm sure you're also driving at the right to assemble in there.


So are you suggesting that the "right to assemble" is not actually a right?

[HeavyAaron]

So are you suggesting that the "right to assemble" is not actually a right?

In the strictest definition of the word "right," yes, I'm suggesting exactly that. It's a liberty. And I've admitted that the two are often used interchangably. The only reason I even pointed out the distinction was that this thread seemed to need the diction to distinguish unlimited freedoms (rights) from limited freedoms (liberties).

Aaron

[Polaris]

I still think this is better taken care of by asskicking than legislation. If legislation is necessary it should simply say that if one uses "fighting words" as per the Supreme Court doctrine than one has no legal recourse if one subsequently finds oneself in a fight.

Yeah but that's exactly what Phelps is looking for - he wants someone to slug him so he can sue everybody under the sun. He's similar to the screamers who occasionally would come to my old college, and call all the men "faggots" and the women "whores", hoping someone would punch them for similar reasons.

Can the Senate pass a "It is legal to kill Fred Phelps and his family and nobody but Fred Phelps and his family" bill?

[Art Vandelay]

I think that would be considered a bill of attainder. I'm not sure about that, though.

[Kerberos]

Can the Senate pass a "It is legal to kill Fred Phelps and his family and nobody but Fred Phelps and his family" bill?
I doubt it. That would clearly be singular legislation (laws about a particular person, group, event or similar) (ETA: Much the same concept as what I see that art calls a bill of attainder), which is generally considered a breach of the seperation of powers. It would hardly be a stretch to rule such a law unconstitutional on either "due process" or "free excercise" grounds.

[Darat]

Yeah but that's exactly what Phelps is looking for - he wants someone to slug him so he can sue everybody under the sun. He's similar to the screamers who occasionally would come to my old college, and call all the men "faggots" and the women "whores", hoping someone would punch them for similar reasons.

Can the Senate pass a "It is legal to kill Fred Phelps and his family and nobody but Fred Phelps and his family" bill?


I think you are attempting to use reason to understand why he and his congregation (aka his family) act as they do. I suspect trying to do that will tie you in knots, his beliefs and acts are simply irrational.

[bob_kark]

Can the Senate pass a "It is legal to kill Fred Phelps and his family and nobody but Fred Phelps and his family" bill?

I'd prefer the "It is legal to beat protesters at funerals nearly to death as well as Fred Phelps and his family for any reason" bill. At the very least, I think beating them nearly to death should at least be considered a form of free speech.

BTW, I really hate agreeing that depraved freaks like this should still have the right to protest. However, I hope The Mutha continues to enact his right to "counter protest" them.

[Zbu]

You know, I don't like putting limits on the First Amendment at all, but protesting at a funeral shouldn't be made illegal. After all, the First Amendment is there to make sure you can voice your opinion, even if you're a stupid ass who wants attention so badly that you decide to do an incredibly stupid and selfish thing.

That said, I think I would love to see this Church of Chimps violently beaten after instigating like this. I would love to see the jury that would put people at jail for merely going to a loved one's funeral and being harassed. No jury in the world would convict.

[HeavyAaron]

That said, I think I would love to see this Church of Chimps violently beaten after instigating like this. I would love to see the jury that would put people at jail for merely going to a loved one's funeral and being harassed. No jury in the world would convict.

Which makes you more in the wrong then the members of the church, IMHO. They are issuing tasteless speech to end violence. You're advocating violence. I'd convict; violent people need to be locked away.

Aaron

[Zbu]

No, I like to think that I'm stating fact. When you mock people at a funeral, it may fall in line with your rights. But to think that one day someone won't beat the living hell out of you while in a highly emotional state is foolish to say the very least.

And I don't think a jury will convict if that happens.

[Polaris]

I'd prefer the "It is legal to beat protesters at funerals nearly to death as well as Fred Phelps and his family for any reason" bill. At the very least, I think beating them nearly to death should at least be considered a form of free speech.

BTW, I really hate agreeing that depraved freaks like this should still have the right to protest. However, I hope The Mutha continues to enact his right to "counter protest" them.

Maybe a Mack truck loaded with concrete blocks and barbed wire (or better yet, tombstones of dead soldiers) could "accidentally" jump a curb and plow through their protest. Considering that they ascribe God's hand in everything, we could give them the hint that it was a Divine "no so fast, sonny".

[Darat]

You know, I don't like putting limits on the First Amendment at all, but protesting at a funeral shouldn't be made illegal. After all, the First Amendment is there to make sure you can voice your opinion, even if you're a stupid ass who wants attention so badly that you decide to do an incredibly stupid and selfish thing.

...snip...

Perhaps looking at it this way may indicate why sometimes one group's rights have to have precedent over another group with the same rights.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/14478613b58c3c.gif Both Group A & Group B have the right to use "The Area", yet as you can see they can't both fit into The Area at the same time. Therefore someone has to mediate and decide which of them can exercise their right to use The Area. A sensible solution is to say (which is pretty much what this law seems to do) "Book a time when you want to use The Area, when you are using The Area the other group can't use it."

So if Phelps's lot want to have a protest at the cemetery they should be allowed to do so, however not at the same time as the funeral group is using it, and of course vice-a-versa.

[HeavyAaron]

No, I like to think that I'm stating fact. When you mock people at a funeral, it may fall in line with your rights. But to think that one day someone won't beat the living hell out of you while in a highly emotional state is foolish to say the very least.


Not true. You stated a preference for it (a strong one.)

I would love to see this Church of Chimps violently beaten after instigating like this

You would love to see people beaten. That's your statement. It's more than just saying a jury wouldn't convict. You said you'd like that outcome. Now if you want to say you didn't mean it, wonderful! Welcome to civilization.

Aaron

[wolfgirl]

Not true. You stated a preference for it (a strong one.)



You would love to see people beaten. That's your statement. It's more than just saying a jury wouldn't convict. You said you'd like that outcome. Now if you want to say you didn't mean it, wonderful! Welcome to civilization.

AaronI consider myself a pretty civilized person, even pretty much of a peacenik. Yet, yes, I would love to see Phelps and his people beaten. I would enjoy it. I would pay to buy tickets to see it!

[wolfgirl]

So are you suggesting that the "right to assemble" is not actually a right?It's technically the right to "peaceably" assemble, and I think you could make a case that holding up signs at a funeral telling people that their recently deceased loved one is burning in hell is not particularly "peaceable."

[wolfgirl]

Yeah but that's exactly what Phelps is looking for - he wants someone to slug him so he can sue everybody under the sun.I do think that a lot, if not all, of what he is doing is just about getting attention.

For years, he has been protesting at the funerals of gay people or people who died of AIDS. He has only recently started protesting at soldiers' funerals.

At first, I thought, "Huh? The soldiers aren't gay; what the...?" But then they "explained" that the soldiers are dying because of America's support for homosexuality. (Ahhh. That makes it completely clear.)

My next thought was, "That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?" But then it started being in the news every time it happened, and I realized that they had just found (made up) a reason to protest at soldiers' funerals to get media attention. There is no connection between the soldiers and homosexuality at all. They just knew it was a way to push America's buttons at a time when we are supporting our troops and very emotional about our troop losses.

They connect everything to homosexuality. I don't know what they un-natural obsession is with this one aspect of human behavior that they find so completely intolerable, but they do.

P.S. As an aside, I think it's disturbing that nobody seemed to really care about Phelps and his gang until they started protesting at soldiers' funerals. When it was "just gay people," nobody seemed to notice...

[BPSCG]

It's technically the right to "peaceably" assemble, and I think you could make a case that holding up signs at a funeral telling people that their recently deceased loved one is burning in hell is not particularly "peaceable."It is not peaceable. It is what the Supreme Court decided in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH)constituted "fighting words," and is not protected speech

I frankly don't think thiswill stop Phelps or his little group, frankly. They are going to do this until they end up in jail, and perhaps even after they get out. I'm betting they're looking for a lawsuit payoff when someone punches their lights out.

[shecky]

The worst thing is that Phelps has a reasonable chance at being victorious in court over this issue. If so, it's because congress and the Prez handed him a victory.

[Upchurch]

It is not peaceable. It is what the Supreme Court decided in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH)constituted "fighting words," and is not protected speech
Wow. Legal scholar that I am*, I hadn't heard of this one. It's a sort of real life "no trolling" judgement. Who woulda guessed?



* I watch lots of Law & Order.

[BPSCG]

The worst thing is that Phelps has a reasonable chance at being victorious in court over this issue. If so, it's because congress and the Prez handed him a victory.Please explain how, given that the Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH)* that the Constitution does not protect "fighting words."

* What's that, the fourth time I've cited Chaplinsky here? Does anyone read my cites? :confused:

[Art Vandelay]

I doubt it. That would clearly be singular legislation (laws about a particular person, group, event or similar) (ETA: Much the same concept as what I see that art calls a bill of attainder), which is generally considered a breach of the seperation of powers. It would hardly be a stretch to rule such a law unconstitutional on either "due process" or "free excercise" grounds.
It's even less a stretch than that. Article I, Section 9:
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."