• Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church
    163 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;37075669]So basically censoring and banning people is only ok when they're saying things you don't agree with. Ok.[/QUOTE] I hope what he is saying is that they banned that one group form entering the country, not that they banned hate speech in general. Even then, I do have a problem with prohibiting someone from entering a country solely on their beliefs.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;37075669]So basically censoring and banning people is only ok when they're saying things you don't agree with. Ok.[/QUOTE] So basically putting words in my mouth is ok? I only provided what I believe to be the Canadian government's rationale, not a blanket statement.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37075684]So basically putting words in my mouth is ok? I only provided what I believe to be the Canadian government's rationale, not a blanket statement.[/QUOTE] but you are saying that's okay for a nation to limit people's freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37075684]So basically putting words in my mouth is ok? I only provided what I believe to be the Canadian government's rationale, not a blanket statement.[/QUOTE] My bad, I misinterpreted. my point remains though, I don't like this consensus that people think it's OK to censor the WBC and remove their protesting rights at funerals. I don't like what they have to say, I heavily disagree with it, and I don't like how they go about preaching their beliefs, but their rights shouldn't be removed because we don't like what they have to say.
This bill is not restricting their right to free speech. They can still say what they please. The only limitation that is being put on them is how far away they have to be. And yes, I read the part about the "cannot protest 2 hours before or after service". I hardly think that's stripping people of their constitutional rights. If their rights were truly being violated then they would be completely prohibited from protesting in the first place.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;37075710]My bad, I misinterpreted. my point remains though, I don't like this consensus that people think it's OK to censor the WBC and remove their protesting rights at funerals. I don't like what they have to say, I heavily disagree with it, and I don't like how they go about preaching their beliefs, but their rights shouldn't be removed because we don't like what they have to say.[/QUOTE] This doesn't remove their right, it only puts a limitation on it in a very specific circumstance. Morally questionable? Perhaps to some. Constitutional? Certainly. [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] Damn ninjas [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37075707]but you are saying that's okay for a nation to limit people's freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Our freedom of speech is already limited. Have you ever heard of libel and slander? Permits for rallys? Marches? Not saying things that induce deliberate panic, such as the "fire in a theatre" example? Such as not having full rights until you are 18 and out of school? [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37075707]but you are saying that's okay for a nation to limit people's freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Our freedom of speech is already limited. Have you ever heard of libel and slander? Permits for rallys? Marches? Not saying things that induce deliberate panic, such as the "fire in a theatre" example? Such as not having full rights until you are 18 and out of school?
The USA: Land of freedom and liberty. Unless you say something objectionable, then you can fuck off.
Also, as a Soldier, my freedom of speech is severely limited. You guys think that the WBC has it rough with this? Please.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37075787]Also, as a Soldier, my freedom of speech is severely limited. You guys think that the WBC has it rough with this? Please.[/QUOTE] Your freedom of speech is in no way limited. You voluntarily gave up your freedoms in exchange for a paycheck and whatever else you are getting out of the military. There is a big difference between giving up freedom and having it forcibly stripped from you because you are deemed "undesirable" by the powers that be.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;37075669]So basically censoring and banning people is only ok when they're saying things you don't agree with. Ok.[/QUOTE] They were banned for hate speech. You can be banned from entering a country if you're not a citizen and you commit a crime, and I suspect that's what happened here. Not to mention that the WBC said that Canada "is a filthy country run by fags"
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37075798]Your freedom of speech is in no way limited. You voluntarily gave up your freedoms in exchange for a paycheck and whatever else you are getting out of the military. There is a big difference between giving up freedom and having it forcibly stripped from you because you are deemed "undesirable" by the powers that be.[/QUOTE] However you still agree that my freedoms are limited eh? Also, no rights are being "stripped" or "removed" here. They can [U]still protest[/U]. I am not sure where this was not clear.
[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. [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] I do realize that very often, the court cases that grant us necessary human rights advances are decided in the favor of [I]absolute scumbags.[/I] Miranda versus Arizona, for example. The case that gave us the promise of being read our rights upon being arrested. It was decided in favor of a man who raped a seventeen-year-old girl, who was later retried and convicted.
When you take away a freedom from one group, you take it away from yourself too. Be careful what you wish for.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;37075861]When you take away a freedom from one group, you take it away from yourself too. Be careful what you wish for.[/QUOTE] My goodness, I seriously wish bad reading was still a rating. What part of "they can still protest, just not within 300 feet and 2 hours before and after" do you not understand? They didn't say "they can't protest!". This was done for basic human dignity and respect for the fallen. That is it. Not some overarching agenda to take our entire 1st amendment rights away.
Is this legal? I'm no fan of the WBC, but making somebody stand 300 ft away because they have a different opinion? Whether it is rude or not shouldn't matter.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37075883]My goodness, I seriously wish bad reading was still a rating. What part of "they can still protest, just not within 300 feet and 2 hours before and after" do you not understand? They didn't say "they can't protest!". This was done for basic human dignity and respect for the fallen. That is it. Not some overarching agenda to take our entire 1st amendment rights away.[/QUOTE] I believe that if you want to protest a business you should only be able to do it after the business has closed and also 300 feet away. That's just done for basic human dignity and respect for the consumers.
.
[QUOTE=lemonsman;37076015]Is this legal? I'm no fan of the WBC, but making somebody stand 300 ft away because they have a different opinion? Whether it is rude or not shouldn't matter.[/QUOTE] It is indeed legal. Also, these things are private ceremonies, and there is such a thing as disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. This law just makes it so people cannot antagonize a private ceremony of military personnel, unless they are 300 feet away from the family, or protest the private service 2 hours before the start and after the end. They still get their message out, and the families are not antagonized. This also protects the WBC. I know several people that would not hesitate to use force to end their hatemongering had they the chance and the means to do so. [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37076053]I believe that if you want to protest a business you should only be able to do it after the business has closed and also 300 feet away. That's just done for basic human dignity and respect for the consumers.[/QUOTE] There is a huge difference between a corporation and shoppers, and one of my dead battle buddies' families grieving at a private ceremony. Don't you dare say that they are equitable.
[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] Yep, preaching hate against a group of people is illegal in Canada, which is why there's never really been much of a KKK presence.
Also, you guys are overlooking this line: [QUOTE]The bill also contains a variety of measures meant to address veterans health, benefits, housing and education.[/QUOTE] It will pass if not only for this reason. I know that these issues need to be addressed. Our benefits, housing, and education are always in a state of readjustment. My TA and my future VA health benefits are very necessary for my health after the Army, as well as my education to be set up for success, not failure after my service. [editline]3rd August 2012[/editline] Argh, my automerge.
.
[QUOTE=Detective P;37076096]They are. Regardless of what your moral beliefs are, when it comes down to Constitutional interpretation, it's pretty damn black and white on most issues. Protesting has been defined to hell and back by the Court, down to everything from the time, the loudness, and the distance between people protesting and not protesting. You may see a funeral as a private ceremony, but Westboro always protests on public lands outside of a funeral- well within their rights. The 300 foot and time limit limitations are both unconstitutional based on previous case decisions, and while they do have to abide by distance and time restraints [I]in most cases[/I] they are generally things like "20 feet from the entrance to the building" and "not in the middle of the night" and "can not be blocking a sidewalk or parking space", etc etc. And these are all reasonable. This bill attacks one type of speech practiced by one group of people in a certain situation. The Supreme Court will have a field day with this law.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I hate that fact though. I can't deny that what the WBC is doing is the ultimate irony. The service member died defending the constitution, and here they are using their right to protest on public land to hate the person that gave them that right. That is why if anyone ever comes up to me all hostile-like, calling me terrible things, I simply thank them. I just wish that these monsters had more respect for people over respect for their damn pocketbook.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37076061] There is a huge difference between a corporation and shoppers, and one of my dead battle buddies' families grieving at a private ceremony. Don't you dare say that they are equitable.[/QUOTE] Oh, I'm totally sorry because I was under the assumption that freedom wasn't something conditionally based off of whatever SKEEA finds appropriate.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37076141]Oh, I'm totally sorry because I was under the assumption that freedom wasn't something conditionally based off of whatever SKEEA finds appropriate.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but I get really riled up when people disrespect my dead brothers and sisters and arms. However, these people have all the freedom they need to say what they want. Why drive the sword into the wound deeper? Would you want me to show up to someone that you love's funeral and yell, call them terrible things, yell at you, and do everything but physically piss on their grave? It makes me sick, sad, and angry that these people do this. Can't my buddies death just be left alone?
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37076119]Yeah, I hate that fact though. I can't deny that what the WBC is doing is the ultimate irony. The service member died defending the constitution, and here they are using their right to protest on public land to hate the person that gave them that right. That is why if anyone ever comes up to me all hostile-like, calling me terrible things, I simply thank them. I just wish that these monsters had more respect for people over respect for their damn pocketbook.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to nit-pick but I can't figure out how somebody following orders to do military stuff in the Middle East was protecting the constitution. If we were talking about fighting off a massive invasion force bent on dominating the nation (Hitler v Poland) then I could see where that was coming from
Shit sucks but really I think this bill is pushing it.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37076158]I'm sorry, but I get really riled up when people disrespect my dead brothers and sisters and arms. However, these people have all the freedom they need to say what they want. Why drive the sword into the wound deeper? Would you want me to show up to someone that you love's funeral and yell, call them terrible things, yell at you, and do everything but physically piss on their grave? It makes me sick, sad, and angry that these people do this. Can't my buddies death just be left alone?[/QUOTE] Hey, I agree with you. I'm not saying they are morally right. I am saying that a person's rights shouldn't be limited because someone else finds it inappropriate or disgusting. In this country we have the freedom to be a cunt, and we also have the freedom to be offended by cunts. We are not given some sort of "paternal protection" from the bullies, because by doing so you are allowing anyone who disagrees with the "parent" to be shut down at some point or another.
I still do not understand how the things they say are not considered hate speech.
.
.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.