Phelps and WBC to protest I-35w collapse funerals [Archive]

Ducky

8th August 2007, 10:05 AM

Or providing Pastor Harry with more material.

Ducky,
Did they say why? Or is the old "God hates fags, Minnesota has fags in it, Minnesota is evil" routine?

That's about it. let me quote to you directly from WBC:

“The bridge stood place by the word of God and it fell by the word of God…Each of these little events is just a harbinger of the coming destruction of this American experiment. We are delivering the final call of the doomed nation.”

From the link in the OP:

The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., plans to stage protests at funerals of victims of the 35W bridge collapse to state that God made the bridge fall because he hates America, and especially Minnesota, because of its tolerance of homosexuality.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 10:07 AM

I think that they have a right to their viewpoint, and we should be careful about encouraging laws against their protests.

tsg

8th August 2007, 10:10 AM

I think that they have a right to their viewpoint, and we should be careful about encouraging laws against their protests.

It's not the content of the message that's being regulated, but where they are allowed to do it.

Ducky

8th August 2007, 10:17 AM

I think that they have a right to their viewpoint, and we should be careful about encouraging laws against their protests.

And I think the WBC is allowed to think and say what they want, without harassing the family of the departed while they grieve.

Foster Zygote

8th August 2007, 10:19 AM

Why don't they just start picketing the funerals of toddlers who have died of cancer?

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 10:20 AM

And I think the WBC is allowed to think and say what they want, without harassing the family of the departed while they grieve.

I don't see how you stop them without creating a dangerous precedent. I think that any place they could hold up signs supporting the families, they cannot be stopped from putting up signs attacking the families, period.

Marquis de Carabas

8th August 2007, 10:21 AM

Why don't they just start picketing the funerals of toddlers who have died of cancer?
They go where the cameras are.

HarryKeogh

8th August 2007, 10:22 AM

If they have to cross a bridge to get to Minnesota then I pray for one more bridge collapse.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 10:23 AM

If they have to cross a bridge to get to Minnesota then I pray for one more bridge collapse.
How does that make you different from them? Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

rwguinn

8th August 2007, 10:27 AM

I don't see how you stop them without creating a dangerous precedent. I think that any place they could hold up signs supporting the families, they cannot be stopped from putting up signs attacking the families, period.
So, disregarding the rights of the families is good, so long as the right "peaceably to assemble" is not infringed--even though the protesters are infringing the rights of the mourners to peaceably gather?
Sorry--but that ball bounces both ways. Violating my Constitutional rights is also a crime.So, you can "Peaceably assemble" over yonder, while we "Peaceably assemble" over here, 'mkay?

ponderingturtle

8th August 2007, 10:29 AM

How does that make you different from them? Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Harry isn't claiming to be divinely inspired and some absolute moral right?

And really I don't want all of them dead, they take their grandkids and maybe great grandkids with them. I would only be made joyful by the death of a limited selection of them, mostly the leadership.

HarryKeogh

8th August 2007, 10:31 AM

How does that make you different from them? Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

I don't really want them dead. But I do really, really hate them.

That's how I'm different from them. They hate me because I'm an atheist and would cheer my death. I wouldn't cheer theirs.

Of course, I wouldn't go into mourning over it either.

Mojo

8th August 2007, 10:38 AM

I don't see how you stop them without creating a dangerous precedent. I think that any place they could hold up signs supporting the families, they cannot be stopped from putting up signs attacking the families, period.

So, disregarding the rights of the families is good, so long as the right "peaceably to assemble" is not infringed--even though the protesters are infringing the rights of the mourners to peaceably gather?
Sorry--but that ball bounces both ways. Violating my Constitutional rights is also a crime.So, you can "Peaceably assemble" over yonder, while we "Peaceably assemble" over here, 'mkay?

In this country, picketing a funeral could well also be held to be conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace; to some extent we're talking about the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre here.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 10:38 AM

So, disregarding the rights of the families is good, so long as the right "peaceably to assemble" is not infringed--even though the protesters are infringing the rights of the mourners to peaceably gather?
Sorry--but that ball bounces both ways. Violating my Constitutional rights is also a crime.So, you can "Peaceably assemble" over yonder, while we "Peaceably assemble" over here, 'mkay?
Where are "your" rights violated, by protecting the rights of the protesters? Last I checked, there wasn't a Constitutional protection against having your feelings hurt.

Again, how can you say that they have a right to stand and support the families, but no right to stand in the same spot to protest? Either speech is free or it is not. The content of the speech shouldn't be the issue.

tsg

8th August 2007, 10:40 AM

I don't see how you stop them without creating a dangerous precedent. I think that any place they could hold up signs supporting the families, they cannot be stopped from putting up signs attacking the families, period.

The full text of the law is here (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=2006&section=609.501). The important bit is that it is a crime to picket the funeral service with the intent of disrupting it.

They are allowed to say whatever they want. They are not allowed to disrupt the funeral service to do it.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 10:43 AM

The full text of the law is here (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=2006&section=609.501). The important bit is that it is a crime to picket the funeral service with the intent of disrupting it.

They are allowed to say whatever they want. They are not allowed to disrupt the funeral service to do it.Have they sued yet? From my non-lawyer's perspective, the law seems unconstitutional, and downright anti-American.

tsg

8th August 2007, 10:44 AM

Have they sued yet? From my non-lawyer's perspective, the law seems unconstitutional, and downright anti-American.

Exactly how?

LTC8K6

8th August 2007, 10:45 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 10:51 AM

Exactly how?
OK... if it is legal to hold up a sign supporting the families, on what grounds would holding up a negative sign be illegal? Because it makes people sad? Because it hurts someone's feelings?

I'm all for the parts about not allowing people to block traffic, impede vehicles, and even strictly enforcing laws about creating excessive noise. Banning peaceful protests because you disagree with the message is going too far, IMO.

tsg

8th August 2007, 10:53 AM

OK... if it is legal to hold up a sign supporting the families, on what grounds would holding up a negative sign be illegal? Because it makes people sad? Because it hurts someone's feelings?

I'm all for the parts about not allowing people to block traffic, impede vehicles, and even strictly enforcing laws about creating excessive noise. Banning peaceful protests because you disagree with the message is going too far, IMO.

The law specifically says "with intent to disrupt" the service. If your message is constructed with the intent of disrupting the service, I fail to see why it should not also be against the law.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 10:58 AM

The law specifically says "with intent to disrupt" the service. If your message is constructed with the intent of disrupting the service, I fail to see why it should not also be against the law.

Again, it is a ban on unpopular speech for NO REASON except that it is unpopular. Maybe you prefer banning speech that makes you uncomfortable or angry, but I don't.

tsg

8th August 2007, 11:08 AM

Again, it is a ban on unpopular speech for NO REASON except that it is unpopular.

No, it is a ban on actions that are disruptive.

Maybe you prefer banning speech that makes you uncomfortable or angry, but I don't.

That's not what's being done here. Your freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to disrupt a play to speak your mind any more than it gives you the right to disrupt a play by playing a tuba. It's the disruption that is being disallowed. That the disruption is caused by the expression of an unpopular opinion doesn't change that. You're not asking for freedom of speech, you're asking for special privileges for unpopular opinions.

Michael Redman

8th August 2007, 11:09 AM

It is not the message, but the action that is being prohibited by the law. Disruption of a funeral is prohibited. You could be protesting to disrupt a funeral simply because you are a jerk, with no agenda at all, and that would still be a crime. You could be protesting the funeral of a serial killer that everyone hated, and you would still be breaking the law if you disrupted the service. The law is content neutral.

The question is not whether it is Constitutional (it is) but whether it can be effective. Because the law is written to prohibit disruption, you would have a hard time getting a conviction for an obnoxious, but non-disruptive protest. Of course, in effect, the law probably gives the cops a grounds for arrest (and removal from the scene), even if the protesters are not going to be charged.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 11:12 AM

No, it is a ban on actions that are disruptive.

That's not what's being done here. Your freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to disrupt a play to speak your mind any more than it gives you the right to disrupt a play by playing a tuba. It's the disruption that is being disallowed. That the disruption is caused by the expression of an unpopular opinion doesn't change that. You're not asking for freedom of speech, you're asking for special privileges for unpopular opinions.Again, is it illegal to hold up supportive signs? Yes or no? If no, then it is absolutely the content of the speech that is being banned.

tsg

8th August 2007, 11:14 AM

Again, is it illegal to hold up supportive signs? Yes or no?

If they are being held up with the intention of disrupting the service, then yes, it is.

If no, then it is absolutely the content of the speech that is being banned.

Replace their signs with tubas. Should they still be allowed to disrupt the service? Yes or no. If no, then it isn't the content of the speech that is being banned.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 11:14 AM

tsg

8th August 2007, 11:17 AM

If the law exists to allow the police to harass protesters whose viewpoints they disagree with, shouldn't that bother you?

Loaded question. You haven't shown that this is the case.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 11:19 AM

Replace their signs with tubas.

Now you've decided to entirely reject rationality and common sense. A sign is not a tuba.

TobiasTheViking

8th August 2007, 11:20 AM

I was going to sit here and not pray for something large and heavy not to fall on them.

if you actively don't pray for something heavy not to fall on them, isn't that stupid? if you want it to happen you have to actively not pray for it to happen, not just not pray for it not to happen.

tsg

8th August 2007, 11:20 AM

Now you've decided to entirely reject rationality and common sense. A sign is not a tuba.

But it's entirely the point. If they aren't allowed to disrupt the service with tubas why should they be allowed to disrupt the service with signs?

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 11:22 AM

But it's entirely the point. If they aren't allowed to disrupt the service with tubas why should they be allowed to disrupt the service with signs?

How is a sign outside the funeral disruptive? The simple answer is that it isn't. A tuba can be heard from a distance. A sign cannot be read once you've driven past it.

tsg

8th August 2007, 11:26 AM

if you actively don't pray for something heavy not to fall on them, isn't that stupid? if you want it to happen you have to actively not pray for it to happen, not just not pray for it not to happen.

Yeah, but I was going to not pray for it not to happen because I forgot to. That makes me not actively not praying for it not to happen.

tsg

8th August 2007, 11:36 AM

How is a sign outside the funeral disruptive? The simple answer is that it isn't.

Then they won't be breaking the law. If, however, you are wrong and holding signs reading "fags die, god laughs" and "god hates America" at a funeral is disruptive, should they or should they not be punished?

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 11:41 AM

Then they won't be breaking the law. If, however, you are wrong and holding signs reading "fags die, god laughs" and "god hates America" at a funeral is disruptive, should they or should they not be punished?
I don't think getting your feelings hurt rises to the level of a criminal act. It doesn't directly interfere with the funeral, so I don't see how it is disruptive. Shouting down the service or blocking the road or tresspassing are all disruptive. Holding up signs on public land that hurt people's feelings isn't.

tsg

8th August 2007, 11:42 AM

I don't think getting your feelings hurt rises to the level of a criminal act. It doesn't directly interfere with the funeral, so I don't see how it is disruptive. Shouting down the service or blocking the road or tresspassing are all disruptive. Holding up signs on public land that hurt people's feelings isn't.

You didn't answer the question.

LTC8K6

8th August 2007, 11:46 AM

OK... if it is legal to hold up a sign supporting the families, on what grounds would holding up a negative sign be illegal? Because it makes people sad? Because it hurts someone's feelings?

Who is going to hold up signs and chant at a funeral except people intending to interfere with the funeral? Whether they chant that god hates homosexuals or they chant what a great guy the dead person was, they are interefering with the funeral, not merely holding up signs.

Their intent is to disrupt, not to protest, imo.

They hide their hate speeches behind a church front for protection. Anyone else saying and doing what they do would be arrested. The below items are all considered disorderly conduct in NC, for example. It's generally referred to as "fighting words" under the law. The intent is to provoke a reaction from the subject of the abuse, and it's illegal.

(2) Makes or uses any utterance, gesture, display or abusive language which is intended and plainly likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.

(8) Engages in conduct with the intent to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with the orderly administration of any funeral, memorial service, or family processional to the funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral, service, or family processional, or with the normal activities and functions occurring in the facilities or buildings where a funeral or memorial service, including a military funeral or memorial service, is taking place. Any of the following conduct that occurs within one hour preceding, during, or within one hour after a funeral or memorial service shall constitute disorderly conduct under this subdivision:

a. Displaying, within 300 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, any visual image that conveys fighting words or actual or imminent threats of harm directed to any person or property associated with the funeral, memorial service, or processional route.

b. Uttering, within 300 feet of the ceremonial site, location being used for the funeral or memorial service, or the family's processional route to the funeral or memorial service, loud, threatening, or abusive language or singing, chanting, whistling, or yelling with or without noise amplification in a manner that would tend to impede, disrupt, disturb, or interfere with a funeral, memorial service, or processional route.

c. Attempting to block or blocking pedestrian or vehicular access to the ceremonial site or location being used for a funeral or memorial.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 11:47 AM

You didn't answer the question.

I'm pretty sure I did... unless you are claiming that rude signs outside a funeral are disruptive to what goes on inside? Or are you really claiming that people have a right to ban any speech which makes them sad or angry?

Michael Redman

8th August 2007, 11:49 AM

If the law exists to allow the police to harass protesters whose viewpoints they disagree with, shouldn't that bother you?If? Yes, in that case. I don't see that that's the case here, but it does warrant vigilance to be sure it isn't applied in that manner. (as could be said for all law, I suppose)

LTC8K6

8th August 2007, 11:50 AM

If you hold a sign that says "N*ggers Out", you are breaking the law. The only intent of the sign is to provoke a reaction and disturb the peace.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 11:54 AM

LTC8K6

8th August 2007, 11:56 AM

The first amendment does not allow all speech, as you know.

tsg

8th August 2007, 11:56 AM

I'm pretty sure I did...

No, you didn't. You just made an assertion that simply holding signs can't be disruptive.

unless you are claiming that rude signs outside a funeral are disruptive to what goes on inside?

I am making no claim, but you are making a huge assumption that the protest will be peaceful. If it is, and they don't disrupt the service, great, they aren't breaking any law. If it isn't, and they do disrupt the service, should they or should they not be punished?

Or are you really claiming that people have a right to ban any speech which makes them sad or angry?

I made no such claim.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 11:59 AM

If you hold a sign that says "N*ggers Out", you are breaking the law. The only intent of the sign is to provoke a reaction and disturb the peace.

So, the KKK doesn't have civil liberties. Anyone else you want to ban?

EeneyMinnieMoe

8th August 2007, 12:02 PM

Good. Lord. God.

Not them again! :eek: Their motto shouldn't be "God hates fags" but "Why waste a perfectly good disaster?" and "Any excuse to get your face on TV is a good excuse!"

As disgusted as I am at them, I would (very reluctantly) concede that laws like this violate their free speech and right to peacefully assemble.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 12:02 PM

I am making no claim, but you are making a huge assumption that the protest will be peaceful. If it is, and they don't disrupt the service, great, they aren't breaking any law. If it isn't, and they do disrupt the service, should they or should they not be punished?

How do you mean "disrupt"? Do you mean if they go beyond holding signs, or do you mean if the families get their feelings hurt? The law seems to assume that holding up signs with unpopular speech on them is inherently disruptive, and therefore is illegal. By that reasoning, all protest could potentially be considered disruptive, and therefore illegal.

LTC8K6

8th August 2007, 12:05 PM

They always go beyond holding signs...

They always display and chant hate speech...

They always intend to disrupt and provoke...

How anyone could not know that is beyond me.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 12:09 PM

They always go beyond holding signs...

They always display and chant hate speech...

They always intend to disrupt and provoke...

How anyone could not know that is beyond me.Oh, it is pretty obvious exactly what they are. What is not clear is why we need a special law to handle them, or why we are so eager to create bad laws based on strong emotional reactions.

tsg

8th August 2007, 12:09 PM

How do you mean "disrupt"? Do you mean if they go beyond holding signs, or do you mean if the families get their feelings hurt?

It matters not how I mean it, but what the law means by it. I think it's safe to assume they are using the standard definition of the word:

dis·rupt
–verb (used with object)
1. to cause disorder or turmoil in:

The law seems to assume that holding up signs with unpopular speech on them is inherently disruptive, and therefore is illegal.

No, it doesn't, evidenced by the fact that it specifically says "with intent to disrupt".

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 12:11 PM

It matters not how I mean it, but what the law means by it. I think it's safe to assume they are using the standard definition of the word:

dis·rupt
–verb (used with object)
1. to cause disorder or turmoil in:

No, it doesn't, evidenced by the fact that it specifically says "with intent to disrupt".

You still haven't established the difference. Do you think that holding up rude signs outside of a funeral is inherently disruptive, and therefore inherently illegal?

Michael Redman

8th August 2007, 12:18 PM

You still haven't established the difference. Do you think that holding up rude signs outside of a funeral is inherently disruptive, and therefore inherently illegal?You keep missing the point. No one is saying that it is inherently disruptive. That is why the law specifies that the intent to disrupt is a necessary element for there to be a violation. You're claiming that the law assumes the intent to disrupt, but it is clear on its face that it does not.

Also, again, the law says nothing that could be interpreted as applying only to unpopular expressions. It is the result of the action, not the ideas expressed, that is the target of the law. The law is content neutral.

tsg

8th August 2007, 01:26 PM

You still haven't established the difference. Do you think that holding up rude signs outside of a funeral is inherently disruptive, and therefore inherently illegal?

No, and I never claimed otherwise.

ceo_esq

8th August 2007, 01:51 PM

The question is not whether it is Constitutional (it is) but whether it can be effective.

Are you sure about the constitutionality here? I'll admit that I haven't devoted much thought to this particular statute, and I don't know if the courts have ruled on it, but what troubles me about it right off the bat is the large size of the fixed buffer zone: "within 500 feet of the burial site or the entrance to a facility or location being used for the service or ceremony". I think I recall one case where a 500-foot buffer zone for simply congregating, with no specific speech aspect, was upheld. But I can't think of any case in which an anti-picketing buffer zone anywhere near that large has been upheld, and I can think of much smaller ones that have been struck down as excessive. I mean, for one thing, 500 feet could very easily overlap private residences. First impression: there's a good chance the Minnesota funeral-protest statute is unconstitutional as drafted.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 02:24 PM

I think that they have a right to their viewpoint, and we should be careful about encouraging laws against their protests.

They have every right to protest what ever sick @#$% they want to, just not a the funerals of the victims of this tragedy.:rolleyes:

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 02:27 PM

They have every right to protest what ever sick @#$% they want to, just not a the funerals of the victims of this tragedy.:rolleyes:
Really? So mourning automatically nullifies the First Amendment? Fascinating!

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 02:28 PM

I don't see how you stop them without creating a dangerous precedent. I think that any place they could hold up signs supporting the families, they cannot be stopped from putting up signs attacking the families, period.

This is true, but where they get to protest does make a difference. Unfortunately sometimes in America we have to take the good with the bad. I simply think that they should not be able to protest at the funeral.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 02:32 PM

This is true, but where they get to protest does make a difference. Unfortunately sometimes in America we have to take the good with the bad. I simply think that they should not be able to protest at the funeral.That sort of emotional response makes for bad law.

The fact that they are allowed to protest except on the date of the funeral, or within an hour either way of the funeral gives the appearance that a funeral is some sort of special "no free speech event". If the protest is legal an hour after the funeral, why is it illegal 59 minutes after the funeral? It smacks of illegal censorship, pure and simple.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 02:36 PM

Where are "your" rights violated, by protecting the rights of the protesters? Last I checked, there wasn't a Constitutional protection against having your feelings hurt.

Again, how can you say that they have a right to stand and support the families, but no right to stand in the same spot to protest? Either speech is free or it is not. The content of the speech shouldn't be the issue.

But is inherently is, the right to protest and peaceably assemble is directly related to the right of free speech. I think if you want to protest an funeral you have every right to do so. You don't not have a right to protest at the funeral! You are creating a dangerous precedent in the other direction, people do not get to decide when and where they get to protest. In short they don't get to impinge their views and rights on others as they see fit. There are important limits to the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble!;)

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 02:44 PM

But is inherently is, the right to protest and peaceably assemble is directly related to the right of free speech. I think if you want to protest an funeral you have every right to do so. You don't not have a right to protest at the funeral! You are creating a dangerous precedent in the other direction, people do not get to decide when and where they get to protest. In short they don't get to impinge their views and rights on others as they see fit. There are important limits to the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble!;)
Nonsense. Trespassing laws keep them out of the cemetery. Noise laws keep them from shouting. Why should there be a law keeping them off PUBLIC land, just because they are carrying offensive signs? They can't project any noise into the funeral. They cannot enter the funeral. How can they legally be kept from places where they have a legal right to be if they weren't protesting? Because they are big meanies, and big meanies aren't protected under the Constitution?

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 02:52 PM

That sort of emotional response makes for bad law.

The fact that they are allowed to protest except on the date of the funeral, or within an hour either way of the funeral gives the appearance that a funeral is some sort of special "no free speech event". If the protest is legal an hour after the funeral, why is it illegal 59 minutes after the funeral? It smacks of illegal censorship, pure and simple.

Do you not fundamentally understand why it should not be allowed for protesters to protest a funeral while it is occurring. Have you ever had someone you care about die? Would you prefer to have a group of protesters show up to protest that funeral while it was occurring? Protesters might I add who have no legitimate beef with your family or who you are burying, they just want to make a political point. Yes it is an emotional argument, we live in a culture in which funerals are held as a time in which families can grieve the lose of someone. Not being able to force your protest and free speech down the throat of a grieving family is equivalent to not yelling fire in a crowed movie house. There are already restrictions on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assembly, why shouldn't these restrictions also include an event that is emotionally charged and most likely will result in physical violence if protested. Application of the law with no consideration of the culture and society it is being applied to is bad law. Not considering how an event is viewed by a culture and basing your application of the law from that understanding. These people have every right to protest, just not at the funeral, or are their rights so violated by this that they should be able to violate a culturally respected grieving time for the family? An unemphatic application of the law with no understanding of the culture it applies to is far more dangerous than any supposed inconsistences within the law!:eek:

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 02:57 PM

Nonsense. Trespassing laws keep them out of the cemetery. Noise laws keep them from shouting. Why should there be a law keeping them off PUBLIC land, just because they are carrying offensive signs? They can't project any noise into the funeral. They cannot enter the funeral. How can they legally be kept from places where they have a legal right to be if they weren't protesting? Because they are big meanies, and big meanies aren't protected under the Constitution?

Your argument is unclear, first you argued that they should be able to protest funeral, which I disagree with. Now you are stating that I am arguing they should not be able to protest outside of the funeral. This is wrong, if they want to protest outside the funeral that is fine. I just don't believe that they should be able to protest at the funeral, that is at the physical location and time they are having the funeral. But if they want to protest outside the funeral, at the same time they are having the funeral, they are just the scum to do it, and should be allowed to! Or do you just like to disagree with people?:confused:

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 03:00 PM

Do you not fundamentally understand why it should not be allowed for protesters to protest a funeral while it is occurring. Have you ever had someone you care about die? Would you prefer to have a group of protesters show up to protest that funeral while it was occurring? Protesters might I add who have no legitimate beef with your family or who you are burying, they just want to make a political point. Yes it is an emotional argument, we live in a culture in which funerals are held as a time in which families can grieve the lose of someone. Not being able to force your protest and free speech down the throat of a grieving family is equivalent to not yelling fire in a crowed movie house. There are already restrictions on the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assembly, why shouldn't these restrictions also include an event that is emotionally charged and most likely will result in physical violence if protested. Application of the law with no consideration of the culture and society it is being applied to is bad law. Not considering how an event is viewed by a culture and basing your application of the law from that understanding. These people have every right to protest, just not at the funeral, or are their rights so violated by this that they should be able to violate a culturally respected grieving time for the family? An unemphatic application of the law with no understanding of the culture it applies to is far more dangerous than any supposed inconsistences within the law!:eek:I think that it is always easy to come up with reasons why we should restrict the right of others. The easy thing is rarely the right thing, however.

I understand every emotional argument that you and everyone else have made. I AGREE WITH every argument, on an emotional level. I don't think our disgust with bad people should trump our respect for civil liberties. Not ever, not even when it hurts us personally.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 03:02 PM

Your argument is unclear, first you argued that they should be able to protest funeral, which I disagree with. Now you are stating that I am arguing they should not be able to protest outside of the funeral. This is wrong, if they want to protest outside the funeral that is fine. I just don't believe that they should be able to protest at the funeral, that is at the physical location and time they are having the funeral. But if they want to protest outside the funeral, at the same time they are having the funeral, they are just the scum to do it, and should be allowed to! Or do you just like to disagree with people?:confused:The law says that they cannot be outside the funeral either. So, you disagree with the law, and only thought you were disagreeing with me?:p

Michael Redman

8th August 2007, 03:02 PM

Noise laws keep them from shouting. And that's OK, isn't it? It's clearly a restriction on speech. What's the difference between prohibiting speech that is disruptive because it is too loud, and this? Aren't we able, in a content-neutral manner, to restrict the time, place, and manner of speech if that time, place or manner is otherwise a disruption?

Why can't the government protect funerals from disruption? Simply because those who want to disrupt them chose to use speech to do so? We don't allow people to cause a dangerous panic by speech. We don't allow people to give away state secrets by speech. We don't allow people to commit fraud by speech. Why should we allow people to disrupt funerals by speech?

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 03:03 PM

Again, it is a ban on unpopular speech for NO REASON except that it is unpopular. Maybe you prefer banning speech that makes you uncomfortable or angry, but I don't.

The law is banning speech that would disrupt the service, you can leave the service and say what ever you want. Also exactly when do you get to say anything you want to anytime you want to do it? Most of these restrictions exist in our society already. You act as if this law were banning unpopular speech outright all the time, it is not!:confused:

Michael Redman

8th August 2007, 03:05 PM

Are you sure about the constitutionality here?No. I just like to talk in absolutes. I'm trying to be more like the President.

I would have preferred they not mention picketing specifically, and simply focused on the disruption of the event. The language seems to speak a little too closely to speech as speech, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for that.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 03:07 PM

The law says that they cannot be outside the funeral either. So, you disagree with the law, and only thought you were disagreeing with me?:p

No I disagree with you, personally I don't think you should be able to protest funerals. I merely conceded that they could protest outside the funeral to give you an example of where to protest that is not the funeral itself. But I am very happy that they cannot do so. They can pick a different time and place to conduct their protest just as most protesters have to do so!!;)

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 03:13 PM

Now you've decided to entirely reject rationality and common sense. A sign is not a tuba.

But you are missing the argument, a tube can disrupt as a sign can; this is the relationship. If you are going to disrupt a service with a sign or a tuba or anything else you have to leave or choose to break the law.:rolleyes:

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 03:19 PM

How is a sign outside the funeral disruptive? The simple answer is that it isn't. A tuba can be heard from a distance. A sign cannot be read once you've driven past it.

The point is that the legislators and the state has decided that it is disruptive. I don't know why you are so bent on protesting at funerals or outside of them. There are plenty of places and times to protest that aren't at or outside a funeral or is all this time and space not good enough? Given the signs this particular group likes to use I doubt there will be any confusion on what they believe when they protest.:rolleyes:

Beanbag

8th August 2007, 03:23 PM

Just give it up. JE's trolling. If you ignore it, it will go away.

Beanbag

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 03:29 PM

Is there something special about there being a corpse nearby that makes the First Amendment no longer apply? Is that what it is, some magical, invisible addendum to the Constitution that I'm not aware of?

Nothing any of you have posted convinces me that this is anything besides banning unpopular speech solely because it is unpopular, and because it hurts people's feelings.

Then apparently you are not listening to anyone else's posts. You have been given numerous arguments and evidence as to why you cannot protest or disrupt a funeral. You refuse to listen, so of course you are not convinced. I will ask you then, again, why is it so important to protest at or outside a funeral. There are plenty of other places and times to protest! Furthermore why to you keep acting as if this law is a great attack on the freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble? It is not, this law was written so that people could protest and people could have their funerals with respect to our cultural customs. Why shouldn't the freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble be adjusted to the culture we live in, and no this does not me banning unpopular speech! But I am sure you will use that tired old argument again!:rolleyes:

danielk

8th August 2007, 03:36 PM

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 03:40 PM

I think that it is always easy to come up with reasons why we should restrict the right of others. The easy thing is rarely the right thing, however.

I understand every emotional argument that you and everyone else have made. I AGREE WITH every argument, on an emotional level. I don't think our disgust with bad people should trump our respect for civil liberties. Not ever, not even when it hurts us personally.

Personally after seeing you posts I doubt that you do. As was explained to you before, protesting outside or at the funeral with the intent to disrupt the funeral is illegal. There are many places and times to protest, in fact the law gives you a buffer zone so you know where you can protest, so what is the problem. Or are your ultimate rights that trump everyones else's, are they being too infringed by actual reasonable restrictions to the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Restrictions might I add that leave you with plenty of times and places to stage your protest!:cool:

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 03:48 PM

Hm, I'm torn. It is certainly true that offensive signs at a funeral are disruptive and could lead to violence. But the reason they are disruptive is simply that they are offensive. The problem here is that the degree of offensiveness is defined by the offended, if you know what I mean. The thing is, couldn't exactly the same line of argument be used to disallow displaying pictures of Mohamed in public space, because some fundamentalist Muslims are prone to rioting on such occasions? Note that I'm not talking about what the actual law says, I'm talking about the principles involved and where they lead if taken to their logical conclusion.

But you cannot take these principles out of the law, the law was created because of the culture we live in. We already have numerous laws that restrict the freedom speech in order to keep the peace. People have the right to protest and speak their minds, but it has to be done in a way that is not going to create serious public safety problems. This always been legally understood as a part of our right to the freedom of speech.

If you were going to display pictures of Mohamed you would have to go through all the work protesters have to in order to legally protest. Now if fundie Muslims starting rioting, they are breaking the law, not you. The balance between the freedom of speech and public safety is a hard one. On one hand you cannot allow people to cause public discord when ever they want to, but at the same time you cannot censure people just because you don't like what they say.:cool:

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 03:52 PM

Just give it up. JE's trolling. If you ignore it, it will go away.

Beanbag

I have to agree, but I thought I would give him the chance to show he isn't doing so. Also, I like debating, even if it is to someone who will never listen, sharpens one's arguments!:cool:

AK-Dave

8th August 2007, 03:53 PM

Two possible courses of action I would consider if I was in that area:
1. Print a bunch of signs that say "Fag haters are closet homosexuals" or something to that effect. Hand them out to people near the protest.

2. Organize a pledge drive to benefit some gay/lesbian organization in the local area or an AIDS support organization. Solicit pledges for x amount of money per WBC member that shows up. Ensure that there is heavy media coverage of the pledge drive.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of these idiots, I think the best way to disarm them is to welcome them to the community and support their right to protest. This may seem to conflict with item # 1 above, but it really does not. These idiots thrive on conflict, which gets them media attention and feeds their misguided egos, so just deny them what they really want.

-David

danielk

8th August 2007, 04:03 PM

Personally after seeing you posts I doubt that you do. As was explained to you before, protesting outside or at the funeral with the intent to disrupt the funeral is illegal. There are many places and times to protest, in fact the law gives you a buffer zone so you know where you can protest, so what is the problem. Or are your ultimate rights that trump everyones else's, are they being too infringed by actual reasonable restrictions to the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Restrictions might I add that leave you with plenty of times and places to stage your protest!:cool:

Please, Dumbledore, calm down. I don't think JoeEllison has any intention to disrupt a funeral. I agree with you that the law restricting this kind of activity is likely to be a great relief to the mourners who have to put up with the evil behavior of Phelps and his congregation.

I think the reason JoeEllison is opposed to this kind of law on principle is that it introduces the concept of speech that is disruptive because it is offensive. The basic problem is that it depends on the mindset of the offended person what (s)he considers offensive. Therefore the argument that disruptiveness can be defined independently from content doesn't seem to hold. On the other hand the analogy with the classic example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a good counterpoint. However, I'm not entirely convinced that it is really the same situation. And there's a possible slippery slope towards laws against blasphemy.

Right now I'm unable to make up my mind about this. However, to me it seems unfair to accuse JoeEllison of all kind of nasty things he didn't actually say. The attacks on his character are absolutely unwarranted.

Please don't kill me if I said something stupid. :o

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 04:04 PM

danielk

8th August 2007, 04:25 PM

But you cannot take these principles out of the law, the law was created because of the culture we live in. We already have numerous laws that restrict the freedom speech in order to keep the peace. People have the right to protest and speak their minds, but it has to be done in a way that is not going to create serious public safety problems. This always been legally understood as a part of our right to the freedom of speech.

Yes, I'm aware of that argument. After all I live in Europe, where it is much more prevalent. ;) However, the line between reasonable and unreasonable restrictions of free speech is fuzzy.

If you were going to display pictures of Mohamed you would have to go through all the work protesters have to in order to legally protest. Now if fundie Muslims starting rioting, they are breaking the law, not you. The balance between the freedom of speech and public safety is a hard one. On one hand you cannot allow people to cause public discord when ever they want to, but at the same time you cannot censure people just because you don't like what they say.:cool:

I wasn't even talking about a protest march. What about the controversy over Mohamed caricatures in newspapers? Printing them triggered riots and even some killings. Granted, most of the uproar took place abroad. But are the borders of a country really a sensible dividing line when it comes to deaths? And what if people started rioting within the US? The thing is, if it all comes down to the feelings of the offended, where to draw the line? Please don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the laws as they are now. But I think it's mandatory to carefully scrutinize every single law introduced to restrict free speech.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 05:01 PM

Please, Dumbledore, calm down. I don't think JoeEllison has any intention to disrupt a funeral. I agree with you that the law restricting this kind of activity is likely to be a great relief to the mourners who have to put up with the evil behavior of Phelps and his congregation.

I think the reason JoeEllison is opposed to this kind of law on principle is that it introduces the concept of speech that is disruptive because it is offensive. The basic problem is that it depends on the mindset of the offended person what (s)he considers offensive. Therefore the argument that disruptiveness can be defined independently from content doesn't seem to hold. On the other hand the analogy with the classic example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a good counterpoint. However, I'm not entirely convinced that it is really the same situation. And there's a possible slippery slope towards laws against blasphemy.

Right now I'm unable to make up my mind about this. However, to me it seems unfair to accuse JoeEllison of all kind of nasty things he didn't actually say. The attacks on his character are absolutely unwarranted.

Please don't kill me if I said something stupid. :o

Really did you bother to read the whole thread. I am a pretty calm person by nature, but when someone wants to fight and blast anyone who doesn't agree with him by misrepresenting their argument I get pretty heated.

I do appreciate you response though, this is not a black and white issue, it is inherently complex. I have a problem with JoeEllison because he does not want to consider the complexity of the issue. He simply wants to view this law as an infringement of the freedom of speech with no other considerations!

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 05:11 PM

I have a problem with JoeEllison because he does not want to consider the complexity of the issue. He simply wants to view this law as an infringement of the freedom of speech with no other considerations!That's interesting, because I feel like the only person who is thinking about this issue rationally, instead of emotionally. You, for instance, seem to think that funerals are "special" somehow, because of our culture, and therefore there should be special laws protecting them from the First Amendment rights of others.

I disagree... because I see a big picture than you do, not because I am looking at it in a simplistic way.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 05:11 PM

That's exactly my point!!

The same argument is already being used to arrest peaceful critics of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The existence of protesters is being considered "disruptive" even if they are standing quietly and wearing an "offensive" T-shirt.

The principle behind these laws sets a dangerous precedent. It is easy to ban creeps, and difficult to think about the bigger picture.

So you think a law banning protests outside funerals is the same legal justification that Bush and Cheney use to justify arresting protesters. I have news for you Bush and Cheney are the President and Vice President of the country they have far more power to make sure offensive protesters get arrested than some silly protesting funerals law. Furthermore Bush and Cheney are know for unethically abusing their power to attack their political opponents. Do you really think they need a law like this to arrest people they don't like?

Further more it think it might be you that is not thinking about the bigger picture. Although using that argument is a lot easier than actually addressing the counter-points brought up to you. People who are disliked are allowed to protest, but just like everyone else they do not get to choose the time or place in which they protest. Furthermore the freedom of speech has always been restricted in terms of public safety, this protesting at funerals law is just that. For the third time, there are plenty of times and places to protest, this law does not really restrict any right to protest or freedom of speech that isn't already restricted.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 05:16 PM

That's interesting, because I feel like the only person who is thinking about this issue rationally, instead of emotionally. You, for instance, seem to think that funerals are "special" somehow, because of our culture, and therefore there should be special laws protecting them from the First Amendment rights of others.

I disagree... because I see a big picture than you do, not because I am looking at it in a simplistic way.

Really, that is interesting, I am being simplistic in my many points and arguments about why there should no protesting outside funerals. In my simplistic rant I have not noticed if you have bothered to answer or refute any of the arguments put forward?

P.S. Have fun trolling if you actually decide to debate an issue, that is where discuss arguments with rationality and not name calling, let me know!

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 05:20 PM

You, for instance, seem to think that funerals are "special" somehow, because of our culture, and therefore there should be special laws protecting them from the First Amendment rights of others.

Warning I deleted your more overt insults. Actually what I argued is that the law should be applied in respect to the culture it is being applied to. Do you not believe that this is true. Do we all live in some cultural vacuum? Or should the cold application of the law with no consideration to culture rule the day?

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 05:20 PM

Really, that is interesting, I am being simplistic in my many points and arguments about why there should no protesting outside funerals. In my simplistic rant I have not noticed if you have bothered to answer or refute any of the arguments put forward?

P.S. Have fun trolling if you actually decide to debate an issue, that is where discuss arguments with rationality and not name calling, let me know!You're the only one who has engaged in name-calling. Interesting that you would project your problem on me.

Further, your entire position appears to be "it is inappropriate to protest outside funerals, because our culture considers it to be in bad taste." That is hardly a sound legal position, or a worthy cause for spitting on the Constitution. You don't have "many points and arguments", you have outrage at the offensive behavior of certain people, and little else.

Zep

8th August 2007, 05:35 PM

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 05:37 PM

They are looking for TV and other media coverage is all.

Frankly, it's time for the Patriot Guard to step in there again.

And I suggest that paint-ball guns loaded with Mace-balls would be useful too. Give them something really awful to whine about.
So, you advocate criminal assault against people you disagree with? Wow, that's a much more enlightened view than Phelps'... :confused:

Beanbag

8th August 2007, 05:47 PM

I have to agree, but I thought I would give him the chance to show he isn't doing so. Also, I like debating, even if it is to someone who will never listen, sharpens one's arguments!:cool:
Well, as long as you remember to wash your hands afterwards.

Beanbag

Zep

8th August 2007, 05:49 PM

So, you advocate criminal assault against people you disagree with? Wow, that's a much more enlightened view than Phelps'... :confused:No, I'm advocating the same rights as they are demanding - the right to protest THEIR gathering in a way I find suitable to me.

Plus it's way more fun than their idea!

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 05:52 PM

You're the only one who has engaged in name-calling. Interesting that you would project your problem on me.

Further, your entire position appears to be "it is inappropriate to protest outside funerals, because our culture considers it to be in bad taste." That is hardly a sound legal position, or a worthy cause for spitting on the Constitution. You don't have "many points and arguments", you have outrage at the offensive behavior of certain people, and little else.

Trolling anyone, no my argument is that you have to consider the culture you are applying the law to. Allowing protesting outside funerals goes beyond bad taste it creates a public safety issue as Zep showed you, I for one would join him. I know I am just spitting on the constitution, who was the person who engaged in name calling?, but the application of the law does have to be done with consideration to culture and public safety. I know I did not post any arguments, mostly just mindless name calling, but do you have any answers to the arguments I did post. If not I will not be responding again. Enjoy the trolling.

danielk

8th August 2007, 05:54 PM

Plus it's way more fun than their idea!

Indeed. I like the idea, too.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 05:55 PM

Well, as long as you remember to wash your hands afterwards.

Beanbag

I have to agree with you I have gotten quite dirty doing so. By the way thanks for pointing out the trolling, it saved me some time identifying it myself. ;)

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 05:56 PM

Double post...

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 05:58 PM

No, I'm advocating the same rights as they are demanding - the right to protest THEIR gathering in a way I find suitable to me.

Plus it's way more fun than their idea!
Are they demanding the right to assault other people?

A more appropriate response? You and whoever else you can gather up get matching T-shirts that say "We're with Stupid!", with arrows pointing right... and then stand to the left of the protesters. :D

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 06:00 PM

Are they demanding the right to assault other people?

With their opinions they are. Or did I forget the freedom of speech means you get to do that right??:cool:

danielk

8th August 2007, 06:07 PM

Trolling anyone, no my argument is that you have to consider the culture you are applying the law to. Allowing protesting outside funerals goes beyond bad taste it creates a public safety issue as Zep showed you, I for one would join him. I know I am just spitting on the constitution, who was the person who engaged in name calling?, but the application of the law does have to be done with consideration to culture and public safety. I know I did not post any arguments, mostly just mindless name calling, but do you have any answers to the arguments I did post. If not I will not be responding again. Enjoy the trolling.

Dumbledore, you're engaging in at least as much name-calling as JoeEllison does. Your point is that the speech doesn't occur in a cultural vacuum. His (and partly my) point is that the idea of having the validity of free speech decided by the ones that feel offended could lead down a dangerous slippery slope if taken to its logical conclusion. I happen to think both positions are valid to some extent. Nobody is trolling.

Achán hiNidráne

8th August 2007, 06:10 PM

Warning I deleted your more overt insults.

Ummmm What "overt insult?" I can't even detect any subtle insults in JE post:

That's interesting, because I feel like the only person who is thinking about this issue rationally, instead of emotionally. You, for instance, seem to think that funerals are "special" somehow, because of our culture, and therefore there should be special laws protecting them from the First Amendment rights of others.

I disagree... because I see a big picture than you do, not because I am looking at it in a simplistic way.All in all, I agree with JE. As much as I don't like Phelps and his little gang of bible-beating thugs, restricting their right to protest creates a worrying precedent. Any of the arguments that are being used to restrict the Westboro Baptists can be easily used against about any group with a controversial message that stirs up emotions; even those of us who oppose homophobia and religious zealotry like Phelps'. In a legal system that works on precedent, censorship is always a double edged sword. The same law that silences speech you dislike can and WILL be used against you, eventually.

Just because WE don't care for the Phelps clan, doesn't mean we throw out the First Amendment in his case. As for "disruption," why do you think we have people with badges and guns for? If violence breaks out at one of these events, arrest those responsible. Until then, people are innocent until proven guilty and restricting liberty on the assumption that bedlam will break loose betrays that principle just as much as the First Amendment.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 06:20 PM

Just because WE don't care for the Phelps clan, doesn't mean we throw out the First Amendment in his case. As for "disruption," why do you think we have people with badges and guns for? If violence breaks out at one of these events, arrest those responsible. Until then, people are innocent until proven guilty and restricting liberty on the assumption that bedlam will break loose betrays that principle just as much as the First Amendment.

That's part of my point. We should only go after people for what they have done, not for what they might do... and the laws already exist to deal with these people. I am always distrustful of laws that are created to deal with very specific circumstances, because laws based on "special exceptions" tend to backfire because they can always be extended far beyond their intended use. Today, we say that rude signs near funerals should be banned. Next week, it is offensive bumper stickers. Pretty soon, it is extended to any public display that might "disrupt" anything, including things that we could hardly imagine.

I have always believed that we are only free when we are ALL free, and only protected when we all have the same protection. To single out some situations as "special", or some groups as "especially" offensive, is the first step down a road that I cannot agree with.

danielk

8th August 2007, 06:27 PM

Today, we say that rude signs near funerals should be banned. Next week, it is offensive bumper stickers. Pretty soon, it is extended to any public display that might "disrupt" anything, including things that we could hardly imagine.

Careful here, slippery slope alone is a logical fallacy. You need to show convincingly that the way down the slippery slope will actually be taken. However, I agree with your sentiment to be distrustful of laws like that.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 06:27 PM

Dumbledore, you're engaging in at least as much name-calling as JoeEllison does. Your point is that the speech doesn't occur in a cultural vacuum. His (and partly my) point is that the idea of having the validity of free speech decided by the ones that feel offended could lead down a dangerous slippery slope if taken to its logical conclusion. I happen to think both positions are valid to some extent. Nobody is trolling.

I will repeat have you read the whole thread? Now I will calm down on the name calling, it is very frustrating to have some one attack and blast you recklessly without even bothering to refute your arguments, though I did continue to make valid arguments not just name call!

I agree with you that those offended should not define our right to the freedom of speech, but we also don't have the right to jeopardize public safety! And this is just my point, protesting outside funerals would jeopardize public safety. There are many more avenues and times in which you can protest, this is a restriction that has always existed for our freedom of speech. No one is saying that you can't ever express you opinion they are just saying you cannot express it in a certain place at a certain time. I will repeat my argument from before, have you ever been able to express yourself whatever opinion you have whenever and where ever you want to, my guess is no!

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 06:32 PM

Ummmm What "overt insult?" I can't even detect any subtle insults in JE post:

All in all, I agree with JE. As much as I don't like Phelps and his little gang of bible-beating thugs, restricting their right to protest creates a worrying precedent. Any of the arguments that are being used to restrict the Westboro Baptists can be easily used against about any group with a controversial message that stirs up emotions; even those of us who oppose homophobia and religious zealotry like Phelps'. In a legal system that works on precedent, censorship is always a double edged sword. The same law that silences speech you dislike can and WILL be used against you, eventually.

Just because WE don't care for the Phelps clan, doesn't mean we throw out the First Amendment in his case. As for "disruption," why do you think we have people with badges and guns for? If violence breaks out at one of these events, arrest those responsible. Until then, people are innocent until proven guilty and restricting liberty on the assumption that bedlam will break loose betrays that principle just as much as the First Amendment.

Well I don't see how this law seriously restricts your right to free speech to begin with. There are plenty of places and times to protest than outside a funeral. Now if they moved to outlaw those other times and places, or certain types of protest, I certainly would have a problems with that.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 06:33 PM

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 06:39 PM

I like:

yelling fire in crowded venues;
blaring my claxon in front of hospitals;
flipping the bird at policemen;
urging crowds to riot;
lying down in intersections;
saying that I want to kill government officials;
informing juries about press coverage of the case;
telling flight attendants I'm going to hijack the flight;
phoning in bomb threats;
etc.In JE's world, all this should be OK. Maybe I should move there. :rolleyes:
That's either awfully dishonest of you, or you misread my intent. I hope you can stop, re-read what I've posted, and get a more accurate view of my position.

What's especially glaring about your misrepresentation is that I specifically mentioned the restrictions on excessive noise and other violations of other preexisting laws. I never advocated breaking the law, I simply object to creating new laws to suppress people who offend us.

danielk

8th August 2007, 06:45 PM

I will repeat have you read the whole thread?

Yes. I think Joe was somewhat insensitive and dismissive. But I also think that your reaction was over the top, and you didn't actually answer his points either.

I agree with you that those offended should not define our right to the freedom of speech, but we also don't have the right to jeopardize public safety!

But don't you see that there's a connection here? Holding up offensive signs by itself is disruptive because of possible retaliatory actions by the ones offended. And I'm not talking about entering the cemetery or shouting during the funeral. I don't know much about law in the US but I hope these potential problems could be dealt with without addressing the content of the speech.

The thing is, in Germany we have exactly such a law against blasphemy like I was talking about. The severity of this "crime" is essentially measured by taking into account the amount of offense it caused. It had almost fallen into disuse because society as a whole became more liberal, and mocking religion didn't cause any outrage anymore. But in recent years the anti-blasphemy law has seen a small revival and has been used against anti-Islam speech. It's still a minor issue but nonetheless worrying, given that it had already been considered a dead paragraph by many people.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 06:51 PM

Yes. I think Joe was somewhat insensitive and dismissive.
I like to think of it as "coldly rational" and "impassive", if you don't mind!:D

danielk

8th August 2007, 06:56 PM

yelling fire in crowded venues;

This is in my opinion the only point on your list that comes close to the issue in question. Yelling "fire" in crowded venues isn't allowed because many humans react by panicking, which could in turn lead to injuries or even fatalities. Offensive signs at a funeral are to be disallowed because of the possible disruption caused by people feeling offended. This is similar, but not identical. As I understand it, Dumbledore is arguing that the offensive signs are used with the explicit intent to disrupt and cause havoc. That's where the crowded theater analogy would fit in, too. Unfortunately it is difficult to prove intent. You'd have to find something along the lines of an incriminating document declaring the explicit intent to cause harm. Maybe it's possible to find such evidence in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church - I don't know.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 07:02 PM

This is in my opinion the only point on your list that comes close to the issue in question. Yelling "fire" in crowded venues isn't allowed because many humans react by panicking, which could in turn lead to injuries or even fatalities. Offensive signs at a funeral are to be disallowed because of the possible disruption caused by people feeling offended. This is similar, but not identical. As I understand it, Dumbledore is arguing that the offensive signs are used with the explicit intent to disrupt and cause havoc. That's where the crowded theater analogy would fit in, too. Unfortunately it is difficult to prove intent. You'd have to find something along the lines of an incriminating document declaring the explicit intent to cause harm. Maybe it's possible to gain such evidence in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church - I don't know.
Here's the difference:

People who hear the cry "Fire!" in a theater will have an instinctive reaction to dash towards the exits, possibly causing injury to some of the people. The blame for the injuries lies with the person who yells the false alarm.

People who read rude comments on a large piece of paper as they are driving past will have the instinctive reaction of having their feelings hurt, and maybe wanting to punch someone. Rationally, however, the person who throws a punch is to blame, especially if they stop their car, get out of the car, and make the confrontation physical. Otherwise, it is just some jerk being a jerk on the side of the road, and we really don't need special laws to prevent that.

danielk

8th August 2007, 07:12 PM

People who read rude comments on a large piece of paper as they are driving past will have the instinctive reaction of having their feelings hurt, and maybe wanting to punch someone. Rationally, however, the person who throws a punch is to blame, especially if they stop their car, get out of the car, and make the confrontation physical.

The problem is that one can make exactly the same is/ought argument about the irrational panic reaction in the theater. It's a difficult conflict to resolve. I'd favor legislation based on intent, even if the evidence might be hard to come by in practice.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 07:22 PM

The problem is that one can make exactly the same is/ought argument about the irrational panic reaction in the theater. It's a difficult conflict to resolve. I'd favor legislation based on intent, even if the evidence might be hard to come by in practice.I favor legislation based on the least restrictions. There is no inherent harm in being a jerk on the side of the road, so there is no compelling social need to restrict speech in that venue.

Complexity

8th August 2007, 07:34 PM

I think the law under discussion is unconstitutional - it violates at least the first amendment.

If the most despicable amongst us don't have freedom of speech, none of us do.

I live near Minneapolis, am libertarian, despise the Westboro crowd, and am gay.

It is wrong to attempt muzzle the Phelps family. My rights extend only as far as theirs do.

Besides, they make the fundies look like utter monsters.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 07:46 PM

That's either awfully dishonest of you, or you misread my intent. I hope you can stop, re-read what I've posted, and get a more accurate view of my position.

I've read what you posted and it merely reflects your unwillngness to move away from your misunderstanding of the subject law. The law makes clear that no group can disrupt a funeral. Same legal theory behind all the laws that prohibit all the activities in my list.

What's especially glaring about your misrepresentation is that I specifically mentioned the restrictions on excessive noise and other violations of other preexisting laws.

Fine, hold that pose. It's wrong. You are merely approving the laws that exist on the same theory but you don't like the new ones. Not my problem.

I never advocated breaking the law, I simply object to creating new laws to suppress people who offend us.

Times change. Laws change. Your argument is wrong and you can prove it to yourself beyond a doubt by disrupting a funeral in MN. Tell the judge all about your objections to new laws. I'm sure s/he'll understand.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 07:52 PM

This is in my opinion the only point on your list that comes close to the issue in question. Yelling "fire" in crowded venues isn't allowed because many humans react by panicking, which could in turn lead to injuries or even fatalities.

Nope. I could propose many scenarios where all the acts on my list could cause panic and bodily harm to individuals. Perhaps yelling "fire" in a restricted space is the most obvious but one only has to use their imagination to see where all the activities on the list are potential threats. Read the law. Someone posted it on page one.

Zep

8th August 2007, 07:52 PM

Are they demanding the right to assault other people?As I understand it (legal people please advise), assault does not have to be physical. So I would class their protest against the funerals as an "assault" certainly. And I would therefore be righteous in defending myself against that assault with appropriate force, so I understand.

It's not like paintball guns will kill anyone, but they will have the desired effect. And Mace-paintballs will certainly make an impact on them (pun intended). Who knows - it may set a precedent in dealing with these wackos, and also act as a deterrent to them for the future.

Well...maybe not Mace. But indelible green or purple dye certainly! :D

But I can see your point that dotting them with a few whacks on the backside would most likely give them ammo to run straight to court to take punitive action. Which is what they are all about really. Perhaps if they had more of their legal actions thrown out as being vexatious, THAT would be a precedent that would stop them from even thinking about protesting.

It's not about free speech. The internet gives them all the freedom of speech they could want, and they can hire a tent or hall, or stand on a soapbox in the park, if they want to rant in public. But this business of disrupting other people's freedom of expression (in this case, of grief) is completely hypocritical and un-American.

A more appropriate response? You and whoever else you can gather up get matching T-shirts that say "We're with Stupid!", with arrows pointing right... and then stand to the left of the protesters. :DThat would be the job of the Patriot Guard...you wanna argue with them, go right ahead.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 07:53 PM

I think the law under discussion is unconstitutional - it violates at least the first amendment.

If the most despicable amongst us don't have freedom of speech, none of us do.

I live near Minneapolis, am libertarian, despise the Westboro crowd, and am gay.

It is wrong to attempt muzzle the Phelps family. My rights extend only as far as theirs do.That is exactly right... I couldn't have said it better.

Besides, they make the fundies look like utter monsters.
Hey, I have to admit... they do a bunch for the rationalist/secular cause!

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 07:55 PM

Your argument is wrong and you can prove it to yourself beyond a doubt by disrupting a funeral in MN.

This seems like proof enough that your argument in completely emotional, and that you have somehow equated me with the Westboro crowd, and therefore have lost all objectivity.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 07:56 PM

As I understand it (legal people please advise), assault does not have to be physical. So I would class their protest against the funerals as an "assault" certainly. And I would therefore be righteous in defending myself against that assault with appropriate force, so I understand.

It's not like paintball guns will kill anyone, but they will have the desired effect. And Mace-paintballs will certainly make an impact on them (pun intended). Who knows - it may set a precedent in dealing with these wackos, and also act as a deterrent to them for the future.

Well...maybe not Mace. But indelible green or purple dye certainly! :D

But I can see your point that dotting them with a few whacks on the backside would most likely give them ammo to run straight to court to take punitive action. Which is what they are all about really. Perhaps if they had more of their legal actions thrown out as being vexatious, THAT would be a precedent that would stop them from even thinking about protesting.

It's not about free speech. The internet gives them all the freedom of speech they could want, and they can hire a tent or hall, or stand on a soapbox in the park, if they want to rant in public. But this business of disrupting other people's freedom of expression (in this case, of grief) is completely hypocritical and un-American.

That would be the job of the Patriot Guard...you wanna argue with them, go right ahead.
I think your position is rather less-than-mature... matching the stupidity of the bigots you hate is hardly the best move, IMO.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 07:58 PM

I think the law under discussion is unconstitutional - it violates at least the first amendment.

Here it is:

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.

Where specifically is the First Amendment being violated?

Zep

8th August 2007, 08:01 PM

I think your position is rather less-than-mature... matching the stupidity of the bigots you hate is hardly the best move, IMO.Could be, but it's the only language they understand. You ARE aware of Phelps' personal history, are you not? The guy and his family only understand "force", not "logic", as a persuading tool. Whoever kicks hardest wins. So if you want to shift him, you have to be stronger than him, not smarter.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 08:04 PM

That's interesting, because I feel like the only person who is thinking about this issue rationally, instead of emotionally. ...I disagree... because I see a big picture than you do, not because I am looking at it in a simplistic way.

That's either awfully dishonest of you, or you misread my intent.

This seems like proof enough that your argument in completely emotional, and that you have somehow equated me with the Westboro crowd, and therefore have lost all objectivity.

You seem to have a rather overblown regard for yourself. :boggled: No matter. I was trying to get you to consider actually testing your position but I guess you're just too grand for that, huh? No emotion at all. Just go do it and then get a lesson in practical law from your attorney and the judge. What a wonderful learning experience!

After all, I already know why you don't want to do it. Reality sucks, doesn't it? :p

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 08:08 PM

Just go do it.

Why do you assume that I would protest a funeral?

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 08:09 PM

Could be, but it's the only language they understand. You ARE aware of Phelps' personal history, are you not? The guy and his family only understand "force", not "logic", as a persuading tool. Whoever kicks hardest wins. So if you want to shift him, you have to be stronger than him, not smarter.

I do know and understand this type of person. Banning them only reinforces their position. Attacking them has the same strengthening effect on them. That's why I suggested mockery. Sometimes, you can shame people into seeing themselves in a different light, where force and restrictions fail.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 08:13 PM

Where specifically is the First Amendment being violated?
You must have, in your anger, missed the whole "abridging the freedom of speech" part... you know, the difficult part, the part where you have to tolerate the stupidity of bigots like Fred Phelps, because to ban speech that offends you means that your speech can be banned if it offends someone else.

Fred Phelps is a terrible human being... he isn't worth sacrificing our rights and values for. That's what it ultimately comes down to: THEY AREN'T WORTH IT. They aren't worth compromising free speech for, and they aren't worth going to jail to assault. They are worthless, and the best response to them is to mock them, or to ignore them. To outlaw or assault them gives them too much power over you.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 08:15 PM

Why do you assume that I would protest a funeral?

To prove your point. Actually, all you have to do is block the access to the cemetery. Be apologetic and all. You don't have to be an ass about it. Explain to the bereaved that you are merely exercising your constitutional rights. Then write us about how right you were after you make bail. :D

C'mon, be a stand-up guy and fight for your rights. People have died for them, y'know.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 08:19 PM

You must have, in your anger, missed the whole "abridging the freedom of speech" part...

I snipped your anger as I'm not angry. I am just puzzled by any intelligent person ignoring the fact that this is not any type of abridgement of free speech. Their speech is not being abridged. Their disruption of a private service is being abridged. Got it yet? :rolleyes:

Probably not. Since you're a constitutional law expert, why don't you go down my list of favored anarchic activities and explain to me, in detail, why those are not abridgements of my First Amendment rights but keeping provocative jerks away from funerals is. Please.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 08:21 PM

Their speech is not being abridged. Their disruption of a private service is being abridged. Got it yet?

Keep repeating it if it makes you feel better... it doesn't make it true. Again, no one has explained how a protest outside the funeral is inherently disruptive to the point of being inherently illegal. Hurt feelings are not a criminal offense.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 08:22 PM

To prove your point. Actually, all you have to do is block the access to the cemetery. Be apologetic and all. You don't have to be an ass about it. Explain to the bereaved that you are merely exercising your constitutional rights. Then write us about how right you were after you make bail. :D

C'mon, be a stand-up guy and fight for your rights. People have died for them, y'know.You don't really have a point, beyond hating Phelps, and being irrational because of your hatred. You are dismissed.

Zep

8th August 2007, 08:22 PM

I do know and understand this type of person. Banning them only reinforces their position. Attacking them has the same strengthening effect on them. That's why I suggested mockery. Sometimes, you can shame people into seeing themselves in a different light, where force and restrictions fail.I would find the publicly televised Mace-ing or green/purple dyeing of these people the best mockery I can think of. Having them chanting away, then get totally splattered and made to run away, all on film, would fill me with the glee of a complete mockery of their stance gone right.

Out of preference, I would empty buckets of dye over them, or spray it out of a small firehose. But that would be just too messy. Which is why I chose paintball guns - accurate, and sufficient response.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 08:25 PM

I would find the publicly televised Mace-ing or green/purple dyeing of these people the best mockery I can think of. Having them chanting away, then get totally splattered and made to run away, all on film, would fill me with the glee of a complete mockery of their stance gone right.

Out of preference, I would empty buckets of dye over them, or spray it out of a small firehose. But that would be just too messy. Which is why I chose paintball guns - accurate, and sufficient response.
The problem with that is simple: it still counts as assault, and it provides them with proof of their delusional persecution complex. By attacking them so directly, you play directly into their hands. Imagine how much fund raising they could do by publicizing how "innocent Christians are being assaulted"... I think your strategy is ultimately self-defeating, as satisfying as it would be short-term.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 08:25 PM

You don't really have a point, beyond hating Phelps, and being irrational because of your hatred. You are dismissed.

Thought so. Quite the pity. Can't explain why all the other laws based on the same principle are OK but this one isn't? Just ignore the question! :covereyes

Buh Bye!

slingblade

8th August 2007, 08:30 PM

You must have, in your anger, missed the whole "abridging the freedom of speech" part... you know, the difficult part, the part where you have to tolerate the stupidity of bigots like Fred Phelps, because to ban speech that offends you means that your speech can be banned if it offends someone else.

It says Congress. It doesn't necessarily apply to private individuals, holding a private funeral service; nor does it apply to private individuals wanting to disrupt said private service.

You don't have a right to free speech in my home. In my home, I can censor you all I like. There is not squat you can do about it. I'm not Congress.

You don't have the right to free speech in a privately owned business, even if said business is considered a "public" place. If I don't like what you have to say while dining in my restaurant, I have the right to refuse you service. If you think I've violated your civil rights by doing so, you can then take me to court and try to prove it.

If I am holding a funeral for a family member, my right to privacy supercedes your right to protest, especially a protest concerning a matter that doesn't concern me.

They can protest all they like. Somewhere besides the cemetary.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 08:32 PM

They can protest all they like. Somewhere besides the cemetary.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Why are you arguing with me, while stating almost my exact position?

Seriously, please, I'm begging you... please stop reacting so emotionally, and actually read what I'm saying. Pretty please?

tsg

8th August 2007, 08:35 PM

I think the law under discussion is unconstitutional - it violates at least the first amendment.

No it isn't. The law is content neutral. Period. End of discussion.

tsg

8th August 2007, 08:36 PM

Complexity

8th August 2007, 08:37 PM

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 08:40 PM

The Phelps family is just a bunch of lawyers who get off on inducing actionable reactions.

Sure they're repugnant. Online, we call them trolls.

Don't feed the trolls.

JoeEllison - You've certainly managed to get a reaction from Slimething et al. Keep up the good work.

I wish I could get them to think, instead of reacting... seriously, the emotional outbursts against rational thought are kind of sad, especially since I share their hatred of what Phelps and his crew represent, and this is supposed to be a website devoted to critical thinking over knee-jerk emotionalism.

I guess I'm more disappointed than anything else.

Slimething

8th August 2007, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2847755#post2847755)

They can protest all they like. Somewhere besides the cemetary.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Why are you arguing with me, while stating almost my exact position?

No, that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

I don't think getting your feelings hurt rises to the level of a criminal act. It doesn't directly interfere with the funeral, so I don't see how it is disruptive. Shouting down the service or blocking the road or tresspassing are all disruptive. Holding up signs on public land that hurt people's feelings isn't.

That sort of emotional response makes for bad law.

The fact that they are allowed to protest except on the date of the funeral, or within an hour either way of the funeral gives the appearance that a funeral is some sort of special "no free speech event". If the protest is legal an hour after the funeral, why is it illegal 59 minutes after the funeral? It smacks of illegal censorship, pure and simple.

Nonsense. Trespassing laws keep them out of the cemetery. Noise laws keep them from shouting. Why should there be a law keeping them off PUBLIC land, just because they are carrying offensive signs? They can't project any noise into the funeral. They cannot enter the funeral. How can they legally be kept from places where they have a legal right to be if they weren't protesting? Because they are big meanies, and big meanies aren't protected under the Constitution?

You have, up to this point, written that it's A-OK for an organized group to target and disrupt a funeral because, per your understanding of the First Amendment, that right is constitutionally protected. Not so. It's too late to backtrack now. You're wrong and you know it. :jaw-dropp

Slimething

8th August 2007, 08:49 PM

JoeEllison - You've certainly managed to get a reaction from Slimething et al. Keep up the good work.

So, complexity, are you going to point out where the MN law contravenes the First Amendment or not? :confused:

Michael Redman

8th August 2007, 09:00 PM

Again, no one has explained how a protest outside the funeral is inherently disruptive to the point of being inherently illegal.

Let me quote myself from earlier in this thread when you brought this up before:You keep missing the point. No one is saying that it is inherently disruptive. That is why the law specifies that the intent to disrupt is a necessary element for there to be a violation. You're claiming that the law assumes the intent to disrupt, but it is clear on its face that it does not.
You ask a question, I provide a response, but instead of reasonable discussion, you simply go about repeatedly tearing into the same strawman.

This is boring.

JoeEllison

8th August 2007, 09:05 PM

Let me quote myself from earlier in this thread when you brought this up before:
You ask a question, I provide a response, but instead of reasonable discussion, you simply go about repeatedly tearing into the same strawman.

This is boring.

I find your position to be lacking, mostly because these laws were enacted specifically to silence Fred Phelps. On paper, the laws may seem neutral, but the reality is anything but.

Tell me, do you believe that Fred Phelps has a right to say the things he does, in public, under any circumstances?

Complexity

8th August 2007, 09:15 PM

So, complexity, are you going to point out where the MN law contravenes the First Amendment or not? :confused:

No, my dear, I am not.

I am not, nor will I ever be, a lawyer.

I have, however, heard several constitutional lawyers argue that the law is unconstitutional.

I think the law is wrong and foolish.

Tootles.

Zep

8th August 2007, 09:19 PM

I wish I could get them to think, instead of reacting... seriously, the emotional outbursts against rational thought are kind of sad, especially since I share their hatred of what Phelps and his crew represent, and this is supposed to be a website devoted to critical thinking over knee-jerk emotionalism.

I guess I'm more disappointed than anything else.I don't think it's a bright idea to try to interact rationally with a group whose whole basis of thought and action is complete irrationality. That doesn't mean we should also be irrational, just that the actions we need to take have to be unilaterally decided, not bilaterally agreed.

It's very much like dealing with a fractious toddler in a supermarket. You can't argue rationally with them to try to make them see reason. Any parents will tell you just how unsuccessful THAT will be! They will NOT listen to reason because they have decided they simply WILL NOT!

If you want to make them do something, it's either wait for them to grow up and be more reasonable (which will take decades), or pick them up and take them there yourself despite all the noise they make.

Phelps is just like the spoiled screaming toddler in a store who wants a particular candy. He knows that if he wants his way, all he has to do is scream again. That is, protest abominably and take objectors to court. And the law and "sensible" people have allowed him to get away with it because...well, because they are trying to be concilliatory. Again.

All it takes to quell him will be a firm parental hand that says "NO!" and means it. He may scream again, but after the first one or two instances, he will get the point. And that parental hand would include a good public humiliation, and a repeated tossing out of court as a vexatious litigant.

Unless, of course, he is stark raving bonkers, in which case he should be committed.

ceo_esq

8th August 2007, 09:26 PM

No it isn't. The law is content neutral. Period. End of discussion.

You know that the First Amendment requires even content-neutral laws that restrict expressive conduct to be (among other things) narrowly tailored, right? I already mentioned that the 500-foot buffer zone in this law presents a potential constitutional problem, because similar content-neutral laws with much smaller buffer zones have been held to violate the First Amendment precisely because the buffer zones were too big to be deemed "narrowly tailored". There is every chance that the law we're discussing could run into First Amendment trouble in court. It's premature to say "End of discussion."

Slimething

8th August 2007, 09:41 PM

I am not, nor will I ever be, a lawyer.

I have, however, heard several constitutional lawyers argue that the law is unconstitutional.

I think the law is wrong and foolish.

So, the quote below was just so much hoo-ha?

I think the law under discussion is unconstitutional - it violates at least the first amendment.

I believe we're all begining to see exactly which side is massaging the law to fit their own ends, are we not? Not every law that curtails freedom is unconstitutional. The people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not idiots, after all.

Please note that the First Amendment states that Congress will not abridge the exercise of free speech then afterwards states that they will not tamper with the right to peaceably assemble. See anything significant in those words? Why did they insert "peaceably" in there if the freedom of expression was absolute?

Be well, Complexity. I'm glad you're arguing on his side! :)

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 09:44 PM

This is in my opinion the only point on your list that comes close to the issue in question. Yelling "fire" in crowded venues isn't allowed because many humans react by panicking, which could in turn lead to injuries or even fatalities. Offensive signs at a funeral are to be disallowed because of the possible disruption caused by people feeling offended. This is similar, but not identical. As I understand it, Dumbledore is arguing that the offensive signs are used with the explicit intent to disrupt and cause havoc. That's where the crowded theater analogy would fit in, too. Unfortunately it is difficult to prove intent. You'd have to find something along the lines of an incriminating document declaring the explicit intent to cause harm. Maybe it's possible to find such evidence in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church - I don't know.

But following this law they would have to show that the protesters intended to disrupt the funeral. I think that this is the harm the legislators are considering. You don't get to disrupt the funeral intentionally. My question again is that there are many other places and times to protest why not use those, why is it necessary to intentionally disrupt a funeral in order to protest it?:confused:

Kochanski

8th August 2007, 09:50 PM

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2184

I'm planning to go to the services, and if I see any WBC protesters within 500 feet, I will be the first on the phone to alert the local PD to have them arrested for violation of the Minnseota law against protesting funerals, processions, and services.

Anyone else in MN care to join me?

Ducky, if I were in the area, I certainly would. Your original post is lost in JEs rantings.

WBC nutters will take advantage of any and all public tragedies to spew their venom and get attention. They are despicable.

A quiet ninja takedown by calling the PD on them is exactly what they need. Let them sit in jail and get no publicity.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 09:54 PM

I wasn't even talking about a protest march. What about the controversy over Mohamed caricatures in newspapers? Printing them triggered riots and even some killings. Granted, most of the uproar took place abroad. But are the borders of a country really a sensible dividing line when it comes to deaths? And what if people started rioting within the US? The thing is, if it all comes down to the feelings of the offended, where to draw the line? Please don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the laws as they are now. But I think it's mandatory to carefully scrutinize every single law introduced to restrict free speech.

I agree with you we do have to examine every free speech law. But we also have to consider public safety. If you cause riots by showing pictures of Mohammad you might have to keep them out of your papers. It has nothing to do with the feelings of the offended, it has to do with public safety, certainly you would agree that rioting threatens public safety. With that said if you wanted to legally protest using the image of Mohammad you certainly can do so. There are many things we could put into the paper here in the US that would cause public rioting, those that come to mind have a lot to do with Jesus in ways he has never been depicted. My point is that you cannot do things that are going to cause riots, but you can protest using things that would normally cause riots. Your freedom of speech is not impinged, public safety is considered.;)

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 10:06 PM

Keep repeating it if it makes you feel better... it doesn't make it true. Again, no one has explained how a protest outside the funeral is inherently disruptive to the point of being inherently illegal. Hurt feelings are not a criminal offense.

No but they have made the intent to disrupt a funeral a criminal offensive and they have every right to do so. There are plenty of other places and times to protest, hence your freedom of speech is not violated. The freedom of speech does not say that you have the right to intentionally disrupt funeral services. It says you have the right to make you views known, not when and where you make your views know. Legislators make the laws, if you don't like them become a legislator or a judge if you want to challenge them.;)

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 10:10 PM

It says Congress. It doesn't necessarily apply to private individuals, holding a private funeral service; nor does it apply to private individuals wanting to disrupt said private service.

You don't have a right to free speech in my home. In my home, I can censor you all I like. There is not squat you can do about it. I'm not Congress.

You don't have the right to free speech in a privately owned business, even if said business is considered a "public" place. If I don't like what you have to say while dining in my restaurant, I have the right to refuse you service. If you think I've violated your civil rights by doing so, you can then take me to court and try to prove it.

If I am holding a funeral for a family member, my right to privacy supercedes your right to protest, especially a protest concerning a matter that doesn't concern me.

They can protest all they like. Somewhere besides the cemetary.

Thank you!!! What a beautiful example, this is what I have been talking about! Thanks again!

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 10:13 PM

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Why are you arguing with me, while stating almost my exact position?

Seriously, please, I'm begging you... please stop reacting so emotionally, and actually read what I'm saying. Pretty please?

But you are stating you have problem with a law that says you cannot intentionally disrupt a funeral. That law is based on what he is asserting, so how exactly do you agree with him?

slingblade

8th August 2007, 10:14 PM

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Why are you arguing with me, while stating almost my exact position?

Seriously, please, I'm begging you... please stop reacting so emotionally, and actually read what I'm saying. Pretty please?

This is the first time I've spoken in this thread so knock off the condescending attitude, and the not-so-thinly veiled ad homs.

I suggest you learn to keep your own emotions in check; they're betraying you badly.

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 10:16 PM

Dumbledore

8th August 2007, 10:19 PM

I find your position to be lacking, mostly because these laws were enacted specifically to silence Fred Phelps. On paper, the laws may seem neutral, but the reality is anything but.

Tell me, do you believe that Fred Phelps has a right to say the things he does, in public, under any circumstances?

How exactly are these laws targeted toward Fred Phelps, anyone who would disrupt a funeral would be charged with breaking this law!

slingblade

8th August 2007, 10:26 PM

Tell me, do you believe that Fred Phelps has a right to say the things he does, in public, under any circumstances?

No more and no less than anyone else does.

The problem is that you don't seem to know what those limits actually are.

yodaluver28

8th August 2007, 10:48 PM

This is not a legitimate form of political or religious protest. These psychopaths are disrupting the funerals of people killed in high-profile situations for the sole purpose of inflicting additional anguish upon the families of the victims based on their own sick delusions. This is not free speech or protest, it is stalking and assault and must be dealt with as such by local law enforcement in the municipality in which the crime is taking place.

tsg

9th August 2007, 11:23 AM

You know that the First Amendment requires even content-neutral laws that restrict expressive conduct to be (among other things) narrowly tailored, right? I already mentioned that the 500-foot buffer zone in this law presents a potential constitutional problem, because similar content-neutral laws with much smaller buffer zones have been held to violate the First Amendment precisely because the buffer zones were too big to be deemed "narrowly tailored". There is every chance that the law we're discussing could run into First Amendment trouble in court. It's premature to say "End of discussion."

That may be the case. If so, I stand corrected. However, simply narrowing the buffer zone would bring the law back in line with the First Amendment. The point is that the law does not violate the First Amendment for any reason JoeEllison et al are arguing.

Dr Adequate

9th August 2007, 11:36 AM

Look, if we're going to deprive Phelps of one of his constitutional rights, why does it have to be the First Amendment and not the Eighth?

ceo_esq

9th August 2007, 03:47 PM

Look, if we're going to deprive Phelps of one of his constitutional rights, why does it have to be the First Amendment and not the Eighth?

Somebody wake up the guy who does the rim shots.

:D

UnrepentantSinner

9th August 2007, 07:24 PM

Do you know what the queers are doing to our roads?

Shouldn't this collapse have occured in Des Moines, Iowa then?

alfaniner

9th August 2007, 09:08 PM

Not sure of the schedule, and I will be out of town for the weekend (starting Friday noon -- gotta go "up to the lake") but if anyone has a good t-shirt suggestion I would be glad to make them. Got plenty of spare shirts, and I would donate willingly to anyone who will stand up to those - - - - - .

Dumbledore

10th August 2007, 08:55 AM

Darth Rotor

10th August 2007, 01:12 PM

Fags probably crossed that bridge every day! On their way to have fag sex even! Abomination!

Do you know what the queers are doing to our roads?

Driving?

(No, not Miss Daisy, Mister Daisy.) :cool:

DR

Ducky

10th August 2007, 01:17 PM

Driving?

(No, not Miss Daisy, Mister Daisy.) :cool:

DR

You totally can do better than this.

Really.

Put some effort into it.

Darth Rotor

10th August 2007, 01:23 PM

You totally can do better than this.

Really.

Put some effort into it.
Actually, my initial response to the OP was
"Give 'em hell, Ducky, and if you get a chance to kick any of them in the nuts, and get away with it, kick away."

I'll try to improve the wit thing, in a bit of a slump lately. :(

DR

Ducky

10th August 2007, 01:27 PM

Actually, my initial response to the OP was
"Give 'em hell, Ducky, and if you get a chance to kick any of them in the nuts, and get away with it, kick away."

I'll try to improve the wit thing, in a bit of a slump lately. :(

DR

Aww, thanks.

And don't worry, even teh gayz driving on the road get in a slump occasionally.

(Ok that was......just ... I'm going to go lay down now, I feel wrong.)

Darth Rotor

10th August 2007, 01:34 PM

And don't worry, even teh gayz driving on the road get in a slump occasionally

So long as it does not cause back injury, probably no big deal. Stretching and warming up beforehand probably recommended by four out of five doctors. (Still in back injury maintenance, lucky to not have had your dire situation. Keeping fingers crossed.)

The original reply was just "Driving" and nothing more.

Then came "Driving Miss Daisy" and so on, which demonstrates once again that not all ideas arriving are good ones. Some culling is needed, some wheat separated from the chaff, the fists from the goats, and so on.

DR