lawrocket 3 #76 October 5, 2006 edited to add - skyrad deleted his post, so I removed my response. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #77 October 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDon't you have any powers over there to arrest to prevent a breach of the peace like we do in UK? "Disturbance of the Peace" as it's widely known here is more oriented towards the literal volume of an event or protest. Protests that are properly organized cannot be broken (our Constitution guarantees the right to assemble), regardless of taste or tact. Groups protesting against Bush are routinely limited to areas away from his presence. Surely similar restrictions could be applied in other situations (like this). While the protest area thing has been going on for the last dozen years or so, I believe it's only applicable to political rallies... The sad part of groups like this is that they recieve support from powerful politicians. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #78 October 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDon't you have any powers over there to arrest to prevent a breach of the peace like we do in UK? "Disturbance of the Peace" as it's widely known here is more oriented towards the literal volume of an event or protest. Protests that are properly organized cannot be broken (our Constitution guarantees the right to assemble), regardless of taste or tact. Groups protesting against Bush are routinely limited to areas away from his presence. Surely similar restrictions could be applied in other situations (like this). While the protest area thing has been going on for the last dozen years or so, I believe it's only applicable to political rallies... Why is it Constitutional in one case and not in another? Why should a political rally be given protection denied to a funeral?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #79 October 6, 2006 the phelps are disgusting human beings. I beleive they will get whats coming to them. MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #80 October 6, 2006 Quotethe phelps are disgusting human beings. I beleive they will get whats coming to them. What should happen to politicians who agree with them and even support them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #81 October 6, 2006 QuoteWhy is it Constitutional in one case and not in another? Why should a political rally be given protection denied to a funeral? Dunno, you'd have to ask Bubba Jeff why one instance of a right was radical enough to be limited and the other instance wasn't...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #82 October 6, 2006 Wow! That was a quick response, I know its not typical of Christians, I was going to make a ironic point about people doing the same thing about Muslims but then I decided I really couldn't be bothered.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #83 October 6, 2006 QuoteHow does protesting some poor girls funeral do any thing Free Media Coverage... ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #84 October 8, 2006 This is why the PA State Police closed the roads and restricted air traffic over and around Nickel Mine, PA for the funerals and it appears the funerals were able to proceed in a dignified manner. Hats off to the State Police for providing their funeral escort with horseback mounted officers. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #85 October 8, 2006 QuoteThis is why the PA State Police closed the roads and restricted air traffic over and around Nickel Mine, PA for the funerals and it appears the funerals were able to proceed in a dignified manner. Hats off to the State Police for providing their funeral escort with horseback mounted officers. Cool deal... Did the WBC protesters ever show up anywhere in the vicinity, or did they keep their stupid asses home?"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livetofall 0 #86 October 8, 2006 hopefully these Phelps will decide to "catch the next comet"www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #87 October 8, 2006 Quotehopefully these Phelps will decide to "catch the next comet" For the sake of a good family name (Phelps) will you guys refer to them as the Westboro Baptist Group or WBC, not Phelps? I get sick to my stomach everytime I read his name. BTW, my dad was from KY then TX, never in KS. Fred is not kin ... I pray! steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #88 October 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis is why the PA State Police closed the roads and restricted air traffic over and around Nickel Mine, PA for the funerals and it appears the funerals were able to proceed in a dignified manner. Hats off to the State Police for providing their funeral escort with horseback mounted officers. Cool deal... Did the WBC protesters ever show up anywhere in the vicinity, or did they keep their stupid asses home? According to their website, they canceled. Also, according to their website, God hates Canada (somewhat, understandable) and Sweden. How can any god hate the Swedish bikini teamhttp://www.uspsa2.org/sbt.htm"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #89 October 8, 2006 QuoteQuote 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? As much as I despise the reasoning behind their protest, I don't believe WBC should be referred to as terrorists for a peaceful, albeit highly offensive protest. Free speech discourages violence as a primary means of protest. We are better of as a country when a group is able to get results from peaceful protests, so that they do not feel compelled to escalate their actions to a violent level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #90 October 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat 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. Really? We don't have that, and neither does any other university in Chicago that I know of. According to Halvorssen of The First Amendment Center, there are "dozens" of colleges and universities with such zones. Given over 3,000 colleges and universities in the US, that doesn't seem "super common" to me. Free speech zones first sprang up in the late '60s in a few public universities, in a vain attempt to stifle student protests over the Vietnam War. We do have such things at the University of Central Florida. The irony is that businesses are free to pay to set up booths to spout their marketing rhetoric outside the free speech zones, but the tuition paying students are significantly restricted in the locations they can spread their views. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #91 October 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteFree speech zones first sprang up in the late '60s in a few public universities, in a vain attempt to stifle student protests over the Vietnam War. ------------------------------------------------------------- We do have such things at the University of Central Florida. The irony is that businesses are free to pay to set up booths to spout their marketing rhetoric outside the free speech zones, but the tuition paying students are significantly restricted in the locations they can spread their views. UCF is a PUBLIC institution, not a private one (it's part of the State University System of Florida). That being the case, in my professional opinion, restricting on-campus demonstrations to a designated "free-speech zone" on the UCF campus is an unlawful violation of the First Amendment. (And allowing vendors to operate outside the free-speech zone, but not letting tuition-paying students do so is, arguably, a violation of "equal protection of the law" under the 14th Amendment.) The reason is that UCF is run (at least in part) by government money, and the state participates to a degree in its governance and thus the school's action in limiting free speech (especially by students who have a right to be there and thus cannot be labeled "trespassers") can be deemed an extension of "government (state) activity". Mind you, in this specific context, it's not the restriction alone that makes it a First Amendment violation, it's the "government" connection which – along with the restriction – makes it so. It's a greyer area when the restrictions are on campuses of schools that are strictly PRIVATE, and receive no government sponsorship. Private institutions' campuses are strictly private property, and the general rule (with a few exceptions, such as common areas of shopping centers open to the general public) is that owners/possessors of private property may regulate public activity (demonstrations, vendors, whatever) on their premises as they see fit. In other words, what UCF is doing is (in my opinion) unconstitutional (thereby giving a person whose rights are violated standing to request court intervention), whereas Brigham Young University doing the exact same thing - as long as it receives no government money or state participation in its governance - might be permissible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #92 October 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteFree speech zones first sprang up in the late '60s in a few public universities, in a vain attempt to stifle student protests over the Vietnam War. ------------------------------------------------------------- We do have such things at the University of Central Florida. The irony is that businesses are free to pay to set up booths to spout their marketing rhetoric outside the free speech zones, but the tuition paying students are significantly restricted in the locations they can spread their views. UCF is a PUBLIC institution, not a private one (it's part of the State University System of Florida). That being the case, in my professional opinion, restricting on-campus demonstrations to a designated "free-speech zone" on the UCF campus is an unlawful violation of the First Amendment. (And allowing vendors to operate outside the free-speech zone, but not letting tuition-paying students do so is, arguably, a violation of "equal protection of the law" under the 14th Amendment.) The reason is that UCF is run (at least in part) by government money, and the state participates to a degree in its governance and thus the school's action in limiting free speech (especially by students who have a right to be there and thus cannot be labeled "trespassers") can be deemed an extension of "government (state) activity". Mind you, in this specific context, it's not the restriction alone that makes it a First Amendment violation, it's the "government" connection which – along with the restriction – makes it so. It's a greyer area when the restrictions are on campuses of schools that are strictly PRIVATE, and receive no government sponsorship. Private institutions' campuses are strictly private property, and the general rule (with a few exceptions, such as common areas of shopping centers open to the general public) is that owners/possessors of private property may regulate public activity (demonstrations, vendors, whatever) on their premises as they see fit. In other words, what UCF is doing is (in my opinion) unconstitutional (thereby giving a person whose rights are violated standing to request court intervention), whereas Brigham Young University doing the exact same thing - as long as it receives no government money or state participation in its governance - might be permissible. I agree that the policy shouldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny. I just wanted to point out that until the issue is examined by courts, it is an enforced policy. I should add that I do not agree with the policy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #93 October 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteFree speech zones first sprang up in the late '60s in a few public universities, in a vain attempt to stifle student protests over the Vietnam War. ------------------------------------------------------------- We do have such things at the University of Central Florida. The irony is that businesses are free to pay to set up booths to spout their marketing rhetoric outside the free speech zones, but the tuition paying students are significantly restricted in the locations they can spread their views. UCF is a PUBLIC institution, not a private one (it's part of the State University System of Florida). That being the case, in my professional opinion, restricting on-campus demonstrations to a designated "free-speech zone" on the UCF campus is an unlawful violation of the First Amendment. (And allowing vendors to operate outside the free-speech zone, but not letting tuition-paying students do so is, arguably, a violation of "equal protection of the law" under the 14th Amendment.) The reason is that UCF is run (at least in part) by government money, and the state participates to a degree in its governance and thus the school's action in limiting free speech (especially by students who have a right to be there and thus cannot be labeled "trespassers") can be deemed an extension of "government (state) activity". Mind you, in this specific context, it's not the restriction alone that makes it a First Amendment violation, it's the "government" connection which – along with the restriction – makes it so. It's a greyer area when the restrictions are on campuses of schools that are strictly PRIVATE, and receive no government sponsorship. Private institutions' campuses are strictly private property, and the general rule (with a few exceptions, such as common areas of shopping centers open to the general public) is that owners/possessors of private property may regulate public activity (demonstrations, vendors, whatever) on their premises as they see fit. In other words, what UCF is doing is (in my opinion) unconstitutional (thereby giving a person whose rights are violated standing to request court intervention), whereas Brigham Young University doing the exact same thing - as long as it receives no government money or state participation in its governance - might be permissible. As far as I can tell, restrictions on student free speech are mostly found in public universities and in private colleges with religious affiliation. Publics answer to Regents appointed by the state (usually by the governor). There is no way such rules could be imposed without Regents' approval so in a very real sense it's state government that is making these rules. Again, it's a small minority overall that have such restrictions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #94 October 9, 2006 QuoteAs far as I can tell, restrictions on student free speech are mostly found in public universities and in private colleges with religious affiliation. Publics answer to Regents appointed by the state (usually by the governor). There is no way such rules could be imposed without Regents' approval so in a very real sense it's state government that is making these rules. Again, it's a small minority overall that have such restrictions. I don't know the extent of restrictions at UCF. I was surprised to learn that there were any restrictions at all. But then I was also surprised to find a mall inside the student union.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #95 October 10, 2006 QuoteThis is why the PA State Police closed the roads and restricted air traffic over and around Nickel Mine, PA for the funerals and it appears the funerals were able to proceed in a dignified manner. Hats off to the State Police for providing their funeral escort with horseback mounted officers. That was very well done. The most inspiring moment in all of this for me has been the following. At the murderer's funeral, half the attendants were Amish, there to mourn his death...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,602 #96 October 10, 2006 QuoteThe Bible speaks of a group, called "Pharisees," they claim to be religious, yet know nothing of God's love and mercy.The Pharisees were not inherently evil. In fact, that movement was probably where current Judaism (particularly Orthodox) sprang from. In that tradition, your actions are part of how you come close to God. Therefore, actions (including the following of the various prohibitions in the Bible like mixing wool and linen) do, in fact, matter. The act of consciously limiting your behavior in prescribed ways reminds you of being bound by God's laws. It, just like Christianity, can be used as a club by which to judge others, or a guidebook for one's own behavior. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #97 October 10, 2006 Quote In that tradition, your actions are part of how you come close to God. Therefore, actions (including the following of the various prohibitions in the Bible like mixing wool and linen) do, in fact, matter. Where does it get you when you practive this with what are clearly old aphorisms and idioms? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
