Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church
163 replies, posted
[quote=Huffington Post]Westboro Baptist Church protesters will soon be severely limited in their ability to disrupt military funerals, after Congress passed a sweeping veterans bill this week that includes restrictions on such demonstrations.
According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service. The bill also requires protestors to be at least 300 feet away from grieving family members.
This aspect of the legislation was introduced by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who, at the urging of a teenage constituent, proposed new limitations on military funeral demonstrations as a response to a 2011 Supreme Court case that ruled such actions were protected under the First Amendment.
In the wake of that decision, many have turned to counter-protest efforts to block Westboro Baptist Church's disruptive and insensitive displays, which frequently suggest that U.S. soldiers have been killed as God's vengeance for gay tolerance.
Thousands turned out in Missouri last month, forming a "human wall" around a church where the service for a fallen soldier was being held.
Earlier in July, hundreds of Texas A&M students showed up in a similar effort, joining together to create a barrier between Westboro Baptist Church members and a military funeral.
And while not at a specific service, a group of demonstrators dressed as zombies gathered at a military base in Washington last month, far outnumbering and overshadowing followers of the far-right congregation.
The bill also contains a variety of measures meant to address veterans health, benefits, housing and education. Obama is expected to sign to the legislation later this month.[/quote]
I understand that protesting is a freedom allowed in this country, but I'm glad that these limitations have been placed to protect grieving families.
[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/veterans-bill-military-funerals_n_1733080.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular]Source[/url]
Shouldn't it be for all funerals?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37074632]Shouldn't it be for all funerals?[/QUOTE]
One thing at a time, at least this was passed so far.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37074632]Shouldn't it be for all funerals?[/QUOTE]
If anything, this could potentially be a first step towards that, who knows. It may not protect all funerals, but at least it protects the one they seem to latch onto the most.
Huh, looks like they finally did something right for once.
Not that I'm complaining, but how is Congress able to do this when the Supreme Court already ruled it legal under the First Amendment?
Canada did it right, banning them from ever entering the country.
What if West Boro is secretly doing all these bad things in order to speed up the laws against them??
Good. They are a disgrace to humanity, and everything we can do to corral them the better.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37074632]Shouldn't it be for all funerals?[/QUOTE]
Making it for soldiers was probably the only way they could slip it by without Republicans screaming about "big government".
[sp]It's a joke people, relax[/sp]
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37074632]Shouldn't it be for all funerals?[/QUOTE]
They mostly picket military funerals, probably because they know people will get even more pissed off, bunch of dickwipes they are.
[editline]4th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=supersnail11;37074743]Canada did it right, banning them from ever entering the country.[/QUOTE]
Let's hope the US shoves them out our door also.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;37074864]Making it for soldiers was probably the only way they could slip it by without Republicans screaming about "big government".[/QUOTE]
It was also pushed as part of a package with other veteran benefits, so it seems more fitting to keep it related to the military.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;37074761]What if West Boro is secretly doing all these bad things in order to speed up the laws against them??[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they do it so people will attack one of the, they sue for assault charges, shock, whatthefuck ever, and get money.
I think this is a good thing.
I'd rather we could sort this out without getting the law involved though; it should be legal to punch people in the face if they reach the level of disrespect that WBC reach in their protests.
If it's accidental disrespect ('I didn't know that this was a cultural taboo, sorry') then it's alright. But if you're going out of your way to deliberately be dickheads to the families who've lost loved ones then you deserve a good smack.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37074738]Not that I'm complaining, but how is Congress able to do this when the Supreme Court already ruled it legal under the First Amendment?[/QUOTE]They might be able to get around that considering its a military affair. Also its not like they are banned outright, Westboro only needs to back up 300feet and they are in the clear.
I'm sorry, why is this getting so much support? Aren't we always pouncing on politicians who try to pass laws that are obviously in violation of the Constitution? Why is this an exception? So what, WBC is a terrible organization (though they don't practice what they preach, they just do what they do so that they can sue people who attack/harass them), but why is it suddenly okay to strip them of their rights as American citizens?
I don't support what WBC does. I really don't. I hate them just as much as the rest of you. But this is ridiculous. I honestly hope this gets overturned by the Supreme Court.
[editline]a[/editline]
For those who aren't aware, the first amendment grants all American citizens the right to freedom of "speech, press, assembly, religion, and petition".
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;37074864]Making it for soldiers was probably the only way they could slip it by without Republicans screaming about "big government".[/QUOTE]
It was a Republican that started this bill :v:
[QUOTE=Beetle179;37075076]I'm sorry, why is this getting so much support? Aren't we always pouncing on politicians who try to pass laws that are obviously in violation of the Constitution? Why is this an exception? So what, WBC is a terrible organization (though they don't practice what they preach, they just do what they do so that they can sue people who attack/harass them), but why is it suddenly okay to strip them of their rights as American citizens?
I don't support what WBC does. I really don't. I hate them just as much as the rest of you. But this is ridiculous. I honestly hope this gets overturned by the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, as much as I hate those ignorant, bigoted, mother fuckers, this is treading on some dangerous ground.
Yeah wbc are right cunts but restricting protests is just no
It's to protect the families of soldiers. It's indecency, and it's actually beneficial because hopefully there won't be any more sueing because of people attacking them. It will keep the protestors safe and the grieving families are given more privacy.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;37074868]Let's hope the US shoves them out our door also.[/QUOTE]
We can't, banishing them would be a violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically; [I]nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/I].
Basically, since they aren't breaking any laws (being the biggest cunt in the country isn't illegal), we cannot force them to leave.
The wording of the First Amendment says that everyone has the right to [B][I]peaceably [/I][/B]assemble.
By staging these protests, the WBC is creating an imminently hostile environment. I can't believe that retarded judge could not see the difference.
I mean, it's like if the KKK had started prancing around at the Million Man March. You know some serious shit would most likely have gone down.
It'll teach those assholes to shut the hell up and pay some respect for once.
[QUOTE]And while not at a specific service, a group of demonstrators dressed as zombies gathered at a military base in Washington last month, far outnumbering and overshadowing followers of the far-right congregation.[/QUOTE]
If I could have seen the looks on their faces...
I don't understand. Aren't most of these places they're being buried at on private property? Couldn't the land owners just tell WBC to fuck off?
How about that whole first amendment thing, and protesting rights. I don't agree with what they have to say, but that doesn't mean we should restrict their right to say it. Hopefully this gets overturned.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37074738]Not that I'm complaining, but how is Congress able to do this when the Supreme Court already ruled it legal under the First Amendment?[/QUOTE]
They ruled that they were legal, but there ARE restrictions to the First Amendment. They didn't ban these protests, they just expanded the zone in which there could be no protest around a funeral. This stuff hits close to home, none of my buddies' families should have to endure the WBC's direct hostility toward them after Sgt. Whoever got atomized by an IED.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;37074743]Canada did it right, banning them from ever entering the country.[/QUOTE]
good job Canada, who doesn't love censorship!
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37075623]good job Canada, who doesn't love censorship![/QUOTE]
Uh, I think it is because they don't want a group that preaches hatred to disturb the peace in Canada? As a sovereign country they have every right to bar entry to whomever they please.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37075646]Uh, I think it is because they don't want a group that preaches hatred to disturb the peace in Canada? As a sovereign country they have every right to bar entry to whomever they please.[/QUOTE]
So basically censoring and banning people is only ok when they're saying things you don't agree with.
Ok.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.