School shooting funeral protests!

[billvon 3,132]

>For example 'support your troops', 'RIP' etc would all be fine . . .

Ah, but see, there's the rub. All it takes is one person at the funeral to think that we should not be in Iraq at all, and blames the soldiers - and that "support your troops" guy is going to jail too.

And take it on a wider view. From reactions on here, "Bush should be impeached and imprisoned" and "Bush is a GOD" would both be seen by some as offensive, depending on their orientation. So we'd have to get rid of them. I'm sure "support stem cell research" conjures up images of dying babies to some fervent anti-abortion types, and that sort of mental image is certainly offensive. It's a slippery slope that we've largely steered clear of because of the first amendment.

> . . . would be illegal and I'm amazed its not over your neck of the woods.

Right, it's one of the consequences of a strong support of free speech; you often have people saying offensive things.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Bill has hit the nail on the head. As much as I despise what they are doing, I absolutely loathe prior restraints on speech.

...

My solution? Get some of these families to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Get a funeral parlor or two to sue for trespass. How is it that the racists like Tom Metzger were silenced? By a civil lawsuit that made them pay for the damage they caused.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in free speech and against prior restraint, or you believe in filing lawsuits against people till the legal bills hurt more than their right to speech. It's a slimy middle ground you're wallowing in.

---

I see a positive in this protest - it suggests that they're no longer getting the attention they seek at military funerals and are looking for more outrageous venues to keep their name in the news. Maybe they're reaching the end of their media given relevence.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Groups protesting against Bush are routinely limited to areas away from his presence. Surely similar restrictions could be applied in other situations (like this).

A few states have laws which have a distance limitation for these protests during funerals, I don't know if Pennsylvania has one.

I just saw on Fox News a couple minutes ago, Mike Gallagher offered the church an hour on his program if they'd cancel their protest. It appears that it may happen.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,132]

>A few states have laws which have a distance limitation for these
>protests during funerals, I don't know if Pennsylvania has one.

Yeah, that may be a good compromise. One such law has been struck down, but I don't know the details on that, and I don't know how the law itself is worded.

>Mike Gallagher offered the church an hour on his program if they'd
>cancel their protest. It appears that it may happen.

Glad they're not going to protest, but not so happy that they're learning they can get what they want by threatening protests.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I just saw on Fox News a couple minutes ago, Mike Gallagher offered the church an hour on his program if they'd cancel their protest. It appears that it may happen.

So Fox News *will* negotiate with terrorists. Would Bushco approve?

[TrophyHusband 0]

good points, but we can't just though our hands in the air and say "ah fuck it, we have to let them torment grieving families. its one of the basic principles this country was founded on." i don't agree for a second that the founding fathers would agree with this bastardization of the first amendment. the point of free speach is for us to be able to voice our opinions opinions and protest the government, not harrass private citizens. i don't have the answer, but maybe lawrocket is on to something. hit them where it really hurts, the pocketbook.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>A few states have laws which have a distance limitation for these
>protests during funerals, I don't know if Pennsylvania has one.

Yeah, that may be a good compromise. One such law has been struck down, but I don't know the details on that, and I don't know how the law itself is worded.

The laws that are in place (I'm pretty sure Texas is one of them) were written because of these Westboro Church protests.

The Pennsylvania Governor was planning on barring the protests. I don't know how though.

Quote

>Mike Gallagher offered the church an hour on his program if they'd
>cancel their protest. It appears that it may happen.

Glad they're not going to protest, but not so happy that they're learning they can get what they want by threatening protests.

Personally, I'd simply enlist the help of the bikers that counter-protest and stand between the service and the protests. What's the name of that group again?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Personally, I'd simply enlist the help of the bikers that counter-protest and stand between the service and the protests. What's the name of that group again?

http://patriotguard.org/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

Bill has hit the nail on the head. As much as I despise what they are doing, I absolutely loathe prior restraints on speech.

...

My solution? Get some of these families to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Get a funeral parlor or two to sue for trespass. How is it that the racists like Tom Metzger were silenced? By a civil lawsuit that made them pay for the damage they caused.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in free speech and against prior restraint, or you believe in filing lawsuits against people till the legal bills hurt more than their right to speech. It's a slimy middle ground you're wallowing in.

---

I see a positive in this protest - it suggests that they're no longer getting the attention they seek at military funerals and are looking for more outrageous venues to keep their name in the news. Maybe they're reaching the end of their media given relevence.

i don't think that's middle ground at all. it keeps government from restricting free speach, yet still holds someone acountable for the damage caused by their actions.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I just saw on Fox News a couple minutes ago, Mike Gallagher offered the church an hour on his program if they'd cancel their protest. It appears that it may happen.

So Fox News *will* negotiate with terrorists. Would Bushco approve?

Well since Mike Gallagher isn't a Fox News employee, I'd say that's not the case.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Michele 1]

Not sure about the burial, but the services will be taking place on private property - the girls' homes. Which means that trespass laws will be in effect, and as these are generally farms or farmettes, I'm not sure how close the Phelps' group can get without trespassing.

Again, not sure about the burials; they might be on private property, as well.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[kelpdiver 2]

who is he? I don't follow talk shows at all, so I falsely presumed he was part of Fox.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

i don't think that's middle ground at all. it keeps government from restricting free speach, yet still holds someone acountable for the damage caused by their actions.

As enforced by an arm of the government - the courts.

sorry, I don't believe people deserve financial compensation for having their feelings hurt. The 1st becomes a sham if any private citizen can sue those they oppose for nothing other than the words coming out of their mouths.

[billvon 3,132]

>i don't agree for a second that the founding fathers would agree
>with this bastardization of the first amendment.

I think they were smarter than most people give them credit for. They didn't write the constitution (and then the bill of rights) and think "no one will ever abuse these rights." From what they've written, they were well aware that they would be used in bizarre, often contentious, ways.

A common claim concerning free speech is that the founding fathers never imagined that it would condone burning the flag. I think that's a bit silly; after all, plenty of british flags were burned around that time, so the issue was fresh in everyone's minds. Had they wanted to outlaw it they would have had both the means and the impetus to do so.

Other claims come about pretty regularly that the "founding fathers never intended to allow (insert expression of contentious issue of the day here.)" In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes explicitly disagreed with that when he talked about the "free market" of ideas. Ideas were to be evaluated in open debate; their validity was to be decided there, not by some government bureaucrat or "morality board." And open debate could not occur if certain (disturbing) elements of free speech are eliminated by law.

Now, "God hates fags" is certainly an offensive opinion to 90% of the population, and there is probably no worse time to express it than during a funeral of a gay person. Outlawing it is, unfortunately, going to cause problems with anyone expressing offensive ideas to any group who is offended by them. Restricting them to a certain distance may be a good compromise, although there are legal problems with that too. That can also be abused - check out the "free speech zones" they've been corralling people into at political events lately. so that's not a perfect solution either.

>the point of free speach is for us to be able to voice our opinions
>pinions and protest the government, not harrass private citizens.

As Justice Holmes pointed out, the objective is to allow the ideas (no matter how offensive) into the public 'market' of ideas, which certainly includes public citizens.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

That can also be abused - check out the "free speech zones" they've been corralling people into at political events lately. so that's not a perfect solution either.

And on college campuses all across the nation. Its super common for a university to have a "free speech zone" and for you to get in serious trouble for staging ANYthing outside of those zones. Unless its something that's pro-university or pro-universty-sports.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[pirana 0]

Quote

My solution? Get some of these families to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I saw the thread title and thought "No fucking way, no way!"

Opened it up, and sure as shit, yes way.

These people are low beyond description.

I like The Rockets idea - hit 'em in the pocketbook with civil suits. If nothing else they might be too busy defending suits to attend funerals.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Either you believe in free speech and against prior restraint, or you believe in filing lawsuits against people till the legal bills hurt more than their right to speech. It's a slimy middle ground you're wallowing in.

How so? Let's put look at a common example of how this works. We all know, accept, unerstand, etc., libel and slander. Let's say that you think that I am going to make a personal attack against you in this forum, and you either get a law passed or get a court order that says that, "Lawrocket may not make a personal attack on kelpdiver in the dropzone.com forums. A "personal attack" may be defined as publishing any statement directed at or about kelpdiver for which there is a risk that kelp diver or any other person reading the statement, may reasonably believe is intended as an attack against kelpdiver."

This is a prior restraint, which would chill ANY statement I make. If I make a post on this board after being served with the injunction stating, "Someone on this board has received a court order preventing me from making any posts that he has reason to believe are directed at him" I would be in violation of the injunction - I made a post referencing you. Truth is no defense, either. The fact that you weren't named and probably suffered no damage is no defense - I am in contempt and can be jailed for it.

That's why prior restraints suck. It does nothing but shut people up for fear of going to jail.

But, let's assume that I make a false statement about you that is so heinous, vulgar and shocking that some locals believe it, seek you out, and beat the hell out of you.

Obviously, it would not be right to make a law preventing me from saying false things, or banning the espousing of views about people, ideas, etc. But, if you suffered damage from those statements I made, especially if false, don't you think I should be on the hook for it? If not for me, you would not have had those medical bills, loss of income, etc. Why should I get off scot-free?

No legislature should make a law, and no court should make an order, making illegal any content-based speech. But no court should allow a person to cause damage with the content of his speech - that person should face the music. When the consequences hit that person hard, sure, what he did might not be illegal, but he will obviously think a lot harder about doing something liek that again.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[yjumpinoz 0]

I don't have the source, but someone is taking them to court about their protest at a military funeral. Remember that most of the clan are attorneys, and they are hiring some other high profile attorneys to help. Attention is what they are getting.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>A few states have laws which have a distance limitation for these
>protests during funerals, I don't know if Pennsylvania has one.

Yeah, that may be a good compromise. One such law has been struck down, but I don't know the details on that, and I don't know how the law itself is worded.

I don't have the time to give an explanation, but it's pretty well-settled that governments may make reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of a protest. These restrictions must be content-neutral, though.

Google "time, place and manner" "content-neutral" and "content-based speech" and do nothing but read for a few days to get an idea of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

I'm guessing that the funerals are going to be on private property, as the news said that the girls would be buried in a private amish community owned cemetary.

Have them arrested for trespassing.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I don't have the source, but someone is taking them to court about their protest at a military funeral. Remember that most of the clan are attorneys, and they are hiring some other high profile attorneys to help. Attention is what they are getting.

And Phelps was an attorney, until he got disbarred in 1979 for unethical conduct and perjury (he took an oath before God and broke it - bearing false witness that he had some witnesses whose testimony would make the court rule differently. The other party got sworn statements FROM those people, who said otherwise).

A nice guy, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

For example 'support your troops', 'RIP' etc would all be fine but this 'God hates gays' etc would be illegal and I'm amazed its not over your neck of the woods.

...and I'm amazed that it is over in yours.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

I'm guessing that the funerals are going to be on private property, as the news said that the girls would be buried in a private amish community owned cemetary.

Have them arrested for trespassing.

But the public right of way outside the private property is open to anyone. As long as they stay on public property, it's no trespass.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

For example 'support your troops', 'RIP' etc would all be fine but this 'God hates gays' etc would be illegal and I'm amazed its not over your neck of the woods.

...and I'm amazed that it is over in yours.

Indeed.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Richards 0]

Quote

It's also hard to imagine how to pass a law that would not have some very nasty consequences. Imagine, for example, a new law that said that religious demonstrations should not be permitted at funerals - then having a group like the Westboro Baptists objecting to a catholic priest saying prayers over the coffin. (And they'd have the law on their side in that case.)

But doesn't what they are doing qualify as harrassment? I realise we have had debate before but bubble zones have been implemented around abortion clinics...why not cemetaries?

Quote

.. and are abusing the first amendment to accomplish their goals (primarily publicity.) That's why they're hard to stop - because they are using a right that americans are not going to give up just because some idiots want publicity.

I am not familiar with the US Constitution but I am curious as to whether you have something similar to our Notwithstanding Clause which allows temporary laws to be implemented "notwithstanding" the charter in unique cases like this. The reason it only allows temporary changes is to prevent "slippery slope" risks. It is only used rarely, yet in extreme cases it has been put to good effect where people were abusing the strict wording of the Charter.

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.