Funeral protesters sued

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

if you allow free speech only where no one can hear it, how is it still free?

sounds like one of those Zen things.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

if you allow free speech only where no one can hear it, how is it still free?

It doesn't have to occur right at the funeral for it to be heard. It can be at any number of locations. Do you feel that their actions are appropriate? Anyway the key thing I wanted to know was why it is so critical that these people harrass the families who have nothing to do with the laws? Why not do this on the white house lawn or at a military base?

I'm sorry if I appear to be restrictive but the actions of these people are needlessly cruel and are aimed deliberately at people who had no say in the laws and cannot change the laws. Its as though they are saying "we will torment innocent people until the government bends to our political will" . I doubt that a bubble zone around funerals will lead to a slippery slope that will ultimately eliminate the constitution.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[kallend 2,180]

Quote

Quote

Quote

if you allow free speech only where no one can hear it, how is it still free?

It doesn't have to occur right at the funeral for it to be heard. It can be at any number of locations. Do you feel that their actions are appropriate?

I've yet to see a single person write in support of their actions, which are obnoxious in the extreme. The issue is one of whether or not they have the right to be obnoxious.

I'm strongly in favor of good manners, but not to the extent that the police get to enforce manners.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

seems to be an approach, though 300ft from the entrance to the cemetary seems grossly excessive.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

if you allow free speech only where no one can hear it, how is it still free?

Excellent point. I’m very much a civil libertarian at heart, so believe me, when you say something like that to me, you’re preaching to the choir. I (and many courts and legal scholars) agree with your proposition: in the absence of access to an audience, free speech is illusory. (SpeedRacer: yes, it is kind of Zen, but it’s also the truth.) It is the hallmark of a democracy, in which The People ARE the government, to be able to petition one’s government for redress of grievances. And since we are a nation governed BY the people, it is crucial that we be able to demonstrate to make our grievances heard (a) directly by our governmental officials, and - just as vitally - (b) by our fellow citizens, since it’s our fellow citizens who vote the government in, vote it out, and become governmental officials themselves by running for office in free elections.

In the US, we’ve seen this issue raise its head when people want to demonstrate against a major party’s national convention during a presidential election year. The demonstrators want to demonstrate right at the doorstep of the convention venue; the police want to keep the demonstrators corralled in a tight “safe zone” 10 blocks away; and the demonstrators (often with the help of that seditionist ACLU, thank you) take the issue to court, arguing that they want to be close enough to the convention to have their protest heard by the governmental officials attending, and if they’re kept effectively out of earshot/eyesight of the convention’s attendees, they’re effectively being deprived of their right to demonstrate, in violation of the First Amendment. Why? Because the intended audience can’t hear it.

The imperfect “best of the worst” solution is to strike a balance. Let them be close enough to make it clear their protest is associated with the event, but not so close as to allow the protest to disrupt the event. An unenviably difficult task for any judge.

Now - as to funerals: I think 100 yards distance is a reasonable balance. Why? It’s close enough so the shitheads are able to make it clear that their protest is associated with the funeral, but far enough away that, hopefully, it will be just out of hearing range of some asshole using a bullhorn, thereby allowing the graveside service to be held in peace. An imperfect solution, but it works for me.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

You believe felons should be able to vote and own guns, despite proving that they're unreliable in respecting the rights of others?

Yea. It's off-topic, but it's been my personal experience that deterrance reasons for punishing people just don't work. I think we punish people because they've done something wrong, and once they serve their time, they've paid their debt to society. So they've effectively raised themselves back to the level in society they occupied before committing their crime.

It's the same reason I think mandatory minimums are crap, and 3-strikes rules are unconstitutional.

Anyway, it's not what this thread is about. PM me if you want to discuss it further.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[billvon 3,132]

>Why not do this on the white house lawn or at a military base?

Because they would be arrested and forcibly silenced. Heck, even if these people went to a mainstream political event, they would be herded into a 'free speech' area and silenced.

> Its as though they are saying "we will torment innocent people
>until the government bends to our political will"

That's true of anti-abortion protesters, anti-war protesters, the KKK, the anti-gay-marriage people, you name it. The whole POINT of public protest is to get in people's faces about your cause until the government bends to your will. The founding fathers knew the right to do this was absolutely critical, and thus gave it very strong protection in the US constitution.

That being said, funerals are enough of a special circumstance that something like the 300 foot rule is appropriate. It's not ideal, but it's an acceptable compromise between the rights of the families and the rights of the protesters.

(BTW if I were you I wouldn't worry about the government 'bending to their political will.' Their actions simply make them one of the most hated groups in the US. The only way they 'win' is if we take them seriously.)