Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church
163 replies, posted
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37111424]Yes actually. Also the snide insults and increasing amount of fallacies.[/QUOTE]
sorry to burst your bubble and your attempt to redirect, but im not angry
also, i think government shouldn't ban drinking while driving because whats next, they might ban sugary drinks cause we might have a sugar crash and doze off, thus getting into accidents
telling us what we can or can't put in our body at any time is fascism anyways!
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37111472]Are you fuckin serious?[/QUOTE]
Yes, unfortunately. I am not talking about what actually makes sense or what is scientifically correct. I am talking about people's right to believe whatever they want and not be told that "You can't say these things" by the government.
Listen, I hate these fuckers as much as the next guy. And I realize that they probably don't even really believe in the shit that they say, and that it's just a scam to make money through lawsuits. But you can't make specific laws targeted at these groups of people and treat them differently than other protesters just because of your definition of moral decency.
[editline]6th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;37111489]sorry to burst your bubble and your attempt to redirect, but im not angry
also, i think government shouldn't ban drinking while driving because whats next, they might ban sugary drinks cause we might have a sugar crash and doze off, thus getting into accidents
telling us what we can or can't put in our body at any time is fascism anyways![/QUOTE]
Nope, you see drinking and driving harms other people on a consistent scale. There is no evidence of sugary drinks causing people to get into car accidents.
Likewise, the WBC doesn't harm anyone or even make threats. They never actually target and specific person. They only say "God hates Fags", not "God hates Todd the Fag".
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37111607]Yes, unfortunately. I am not talking about what actually makes sense or what is scientifically correct. I am talking about people's right to believe whatever they want and not be told that "You can't say these things" by the government.
Listen, I hate these fuckers as much as the next guy. And I realize that they probably don't even really believe in the shit that they say, and that it's just a scam to make money through lawsuits. But you can't make specific laws targeted at these groups of people and treat them differently than other protesters just because of your definition of moral decency.[/QUOTE]
Yes you can because these cunts are just a hate group. They are just inciting hate and nothing else.
As far as I'm concerned these guys are like the KKK and I bet you wouldn't want those guys running around everywhere now would you?
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37111750]Yes you can because these cunts are just a hate group. They are just inciting hate and nothing else.
As far as I'm concerned these guys are like the KKK and I bet you wouldn't want those guys running around everywhere now would you?[/QUOTE]
I don't want any of them running around because they are all scum, but it's not about what I want, what you want, or what anybody believe in. To them, supporting gay rights is hate speech and should be banned. Who's moral compass do we go by when we have so many different beliefs and opinions in this country? Everyone's opinions must be tolerated. As long as nobody is threatened or physically hurt, then they can say whatever shit they want.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37111783]I don't want any of them running around because they are all scum, but it's not about what I want, what you want, or what anybody believe in. To them, supporting gay rights is hate speech and should be banned. [B]Who's moral compass do we go by when we have so many different beliefs and opinions in this country?[/B] Everyone's opinions must be tolerated. As long as nobody is threatened or physically hurt, then they can say whatever shit they want.[/QUOTE]
We follow the ones who support human rights.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37111816]We follow the ones who support human rights.[/QUOTE]
Your idea of human rights is different than theirs.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37111833]Your idea of human rights is different than theirs.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, mine is the decent one that's not motivated by senseless hate and bigotry.
.
I have no problem with people saying whatever they want - hell, I support the fact that even nazis can go through the next-biggest city in Denmark and demonstrate. What I do have a problem with, is harassment. There's a time and place for voicing your opinion - saying that we're limiting free speech when we say "hey, keep your distance for just a moment, we'll be right back" is not limiting free speech - it's simply respecting eachother and let everybody have free speech. If a funeral is simply destroyed by a demonstration voicing their opinions, you're limiting the attendees right to say what they wanted to say at that funeral. While I totally agree that law is detached from moral and bias - it should be - there's some cases where you have to rule in one way. Who's right do you want to defend? The people attending the funeral, or the people that is demonstrating? Of course we're hitting a very specific group of people here, but aren't we doing that with pretty much any legislation? We're only hitting dog owners that don't pick up their dog's shit when we say "Public dog shit is now illegal", and they're off the opinion "Why should I care about what other people care about my dog's shit?" - which translates pretty well to WBC's act of limiting the places where people can go unharassed.
I'm not entirely for this legislation from a strictly black/white perspective, but can we come together and say that this probably going to go over fine in the long run? WBC will still demonstrate - just not within a 100m of a funeral. People will still be able to hold funerals, just without the harassment.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;37112774]I have no problem with people saying whatever they want - hell, I support the fact that even nazis can go through the next-biggest city in Denmark and demonstrate. What I do have a problem with, is harassment. There's a time and place for voicing your opinion - saying that we're limiting free speech when we say "hey, keep your distance for just a moment, we'll be right back" is not limiting free speech - it's simply respecting eachother and let everybody have free speech. If a funeral is simply destroyed by a demonstration voicing their opinions, you're limiting the attendees right to say what they wanted to say at that funeral. While I totally agree that law is detached from moral and bias - it should be - there's some cases where you have to rule in one way. Who's right do you want to defend? The people attending the funeral, or the people that is demonstrating? Of course we're hitting a very specific group of people here, but aren't we doing that with pretty much any legislation? We're only hitting dog owners that don't pick up their dog's shit when we say "Public dog shit is now illegal", and they're off the opinion "Why should I care about what other people care about my dog's shit?" - which translates pretty well to WBC's act of limiting the places where people can go unharassed.
I'm not entirely for this legislation from a strictly black/white perspective, but can we come together and say that this probably going to go over fine in the long run? WBC will still demonstrate - just not within a 100m of a funeral. People will still be able to hold funerals, just without the harassment.[/QUOTE]
You have it backwards. The funeral is not being destroyed by the protest. The protest is being destroyed by the funeral, if this law is passed. Detective P has gone over this about four times now.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37112902]You have it backwards. The funeral is not being destroyed by the protest. The protest is being destroyed by the funeral, if this law is passed. Detective P has gone over this about four times now.[/QUOTE]
I think the funeral would get interrupted quite heavily by the protest if they were standing quite near, and of course the protest would be smashed if the law passes. But as far I understand it, they would only have to move it back a bit. As I said in the last part of my post, a part of me agrees with the good Detective, but but the other part of me says that it's probably the better solution practically, if a bit iffy. People at the funeral will be happier, and it probably won't hit the WBC [I]too[/I] hard. Or any other round of people that would like to voice their opinions close to a funeral.
You have to realize that legally, the funeral is a private event held voluntarily at the location specified. The protest is voluntary as well, but on public land. Westboro has a right to be on the land. The funeral does not have special protections. Because it is a private event held on private land, it can be argued that the funeral does not have the same protections as the protest. Arguably, WBC should receive greater protections than the funeral on this issue, because WBC is on public land while the funeral is a private event. The funeral does not have protection against interruption, and indeed has no protection to occur undisturbed at all. WBC, however, has the legal protection to use public land to protest within legal bounds.
Again, just because funerals hold moral, cultural, or emotional impact doesn't mean that they get special protections against otherwise acceptable protest on public land.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;37113039]I think the funeral would get interrupted quite heavily by the protest if they were standing quite near, and of course the protest would be smashed if the law passes. But as far I understand it, they would only have to move it back a bit. As I said in the last part of my post, a part of me agrees with the good Detective, but but the other part of me says that it's probably the better solution practically, if a bit iffy. People at the funeral will be happier, and it probably won't hit the WBC [I]too[/I] hard. Or any other round of people that would like to voice their opinions close to a funeral.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter if the funeral is interrupted by the protest because the funeral is voluntary. The protest is a Constitutional right.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;37105830]No. I'm against it when it's objectively wrong and is actual Harassment disguised as a protest to exploit one of the bajillion loopholes in a flawed constitution that no one wants to fix because for some odd reason, it's holy. And you still didn't read the OP.[/QUOTE]
objectively wrong? yes, because we all know god LOVES fags. Oh wait, we don't. The idea that god hates fags is not objectively wrong. And what loopholes? The first amendment has no loopholes. Allowing people to express their opinions is not a loophole.
[editline]6th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bomimo;37107922]Harassment =/ Free speech. You need to get that before you argue with anyone from europe. Respecting your next of kin works fine over here as a social norm, but you guys... It's a massive failure, as we can see. Yet WE still have anti-harassment laws. You're free to speak, but don't go offending people without justifiable reason to do so. It works fine and i feel you guys would do well with that. Your social norms are degrading seriously fast. People are so busy taking care of family values that they don't ever realize that they're the whole problem. People are so busy defending abusive peoples rights, that they never see that revoking right to abuse wouldn't even harm them. When you have no logic behind what you're saying, yet claim the right to abuse, favor and even deny services towards people who see through your shallow idea, then we're in a shit position. Over here, one can sue, with you guys, it seems to be all cool. That Romney will want to pass bedroom laws, forbid stem cell and Aids research and many other logically sound things, just because some space-monkey told him to via an ancient book that is an utter shit lie.
Do you think that is all ok? Should Romney or anyone else be able to force-pass laws based on the bible? Should he even be allowed to run for presidency when so far, he's denying every system of logic that a president will need to have total understanding of in order to lead. Does this guy even have any idea about how society works?
How often do you protest a funeral? For real? Ok. How often does WBC NOT harass the family of or the dead soldier directly or indirectly when they protest? They excuse themselves with "But the family came to us and started yelling" No shit sherlock.
As someone already said. If these were muslims, everyone would be a-okay with silencing them. But let's see what happens next. There's a giant Sikh uprising in USA right now, yes? Let's wait and see what this ends with and then we can decide if it's only ok because Jesus or you guys are actually for real OK with legit protests, let alone harassment in public areas.[/QUOTE]
What? we have to agree with you before we argue with you about free speech? that makes no sense. Romney does not want to pass any of those laws, nice lies. And we don't support abuse or denial of services because of religious beliefs. What we support is free speech. Speech is not abusive. And the WBC has the right to protest on public land, funeral or not. And while some people might support silencing of muslims, the people in this thread would not. Just because we support free speech doesn't mean we are religious conservatives. Nice Strawman, but we ain't buying it.
So hold on guys, answer this:
Are you guys in favor massive hate speech rally protesting the existence of a certain race, religion, or creed? If yes, if violence occurs afterwards due to said speech and is directly attributed to the violence, should the speaker be prosecuted?
[QUOTE=Bomimo;37109013]This is the part people seem to ignore, just so they can go all dramaqueen about their freedoms... It's not a protest, it's a mock protest.
In Europe, you have to have authorization to do a protest. This isn't given via subjective evaluation, as many of you keep saying is how this law could be abused. It's done by you bringing evidence that your protest is legit.
WBC claim to... what? I forget, but it's something about american being shit because homosexuals. So. They'd need to bring scientific studies that support that point, factual evidence that the bible is correct and that kind of shit. Ethics are entirely subjective, facts aren't. Protests NEED to be backed by facts. You CAN protest to raise awareness for starving african kids, because you can factually prove that they're starving. From there, using Ethos is perfectly ok.
You really can't protest faggots ruining america, because you really can't objectively support that argument with valid sources. You can't start a protest because not enough people follow the bible or believe in it, because you can't factually prove shit of it. That's the whole idea behind managing protests. Does it make sense to have it?
Are gays oppressed? Studies show "FUCK YES" well then protest! If anyone SHOULD goddamn protest, then it's gays and veterans who should protest WBC's abuse of mock protests in order to harass, because that can be proven wrong by backing it with social norms, studies of positive social conduct and law.
It really ain't that hard to spot a legit argument and a shit one. Does the argument stand or are they just whoring? Why don't anyone follow that?
Should the first ammendmend be fixed? Well, let's look up all the cases of it being abused and loopholed. If a ton, then protest, if none. Then this is officially a cover-up and China is now heaven compared to this.[/QUOTE]
hat's nice to know that Europe represses it's citizens, but us Americans like free speech. Now let's look at the facts behind their protest:
1. Gays are being more and more accepted in society.
2. Our economy crashed.
3. soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
All three of facts correlate. Does that imply causation? no. But many political movements are based more on correlation than on causation.
More importantly, protests don't need to be based on facts. They are based on opinions, just like politics. Politics is about what we should do, not what is.
[editline]6th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;37115664]So hold on guys, answer this:
Are you guys in favor massive hate speech rally protesting the existence of a certain race, religion, or creed? If yes, if violence occurs afterwards due to said speech and is directly attributed to the violence, should the speaker be prosecuted?[/QUOTE]
I am not in favor of massive hate speech rallies, but I do believe they are legal and people have a right to participate in them. And it depends. Did the speaker advocate violence? If he did not, then no, he is innocent, unless of course he took part in the violence. If he did advocate violence, and the violence took place right after the speech, then yes, the speaker is guilty.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;37115664]So hold on guys, answer this:
Are you guys in favor massive hate speech rally protesting the existence of a certain race, religion, or creed? If yes, if violence occurs afterwards due to said speech and is directly attributed to the violence, should the speaker be prosecuted?[/QUOTE]
Three part answer:
1. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._Chicago[/url] -a speaker whose "generally objectionable" speech causes a violent reaction in objection to the speech is not guilty of inciting violence.
2. There's also the common concept of "inciting a riot" and inciting violence. A person must urge or request that 10 or more persons act violently.
3. This is not the same as promoting violence in the abstract. Promoting violence in the abstract is legal, which is why I can advocate for communist revolution today. I can say, in public, that "We should overthrow the capitalists." I can say "We will overthrow the capitalists". I can't say "Let's go overthrow the capitalists right now at this minute" because that is promoting active, immediate violence. Neglecting this fact was the reason we interned and imprisoned nearly tens of thousands of leftists before 1960, only because their beliefs and speech.
It basically all comes down to this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action[/url]
To answer your question more directly, using the ILA test, which I fully support, a hateful rally is not only legal but should be protected until there is active promotion of immediate lawless action. If violence happens against, say, Jews, after a rally against the Jews, then the speaker is not accountable for the actions of others unless the speaker directly said "Go kill some Jews."
The law already had this one covered a long time ago, but we're just working out the kinks in the past 10 or 20 years.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;37111864]Yeah, mine is the decent one that's not motivated by senseless hate and bigotry.[/QUOTE]
oh, so your the one that gets to decide whose ideas are better? and your ideas are motivated by hate. A hatred of bigots. Your bigoted against bigots. If people aren't allowed to say "I hate fags" then you shouldn't be allowed to say "I hate WBC". Both are a form of hate speech.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;37108571]so you resort to saying i can't or shouldn't because of laws that restricts my speech, yet you fully support grieving already volatile family members by having people saying their sons or daughters are faggots going to hell? nice
why do people keep fucking saying SLIPPERY SLOPE, WHATS NEXT, and etc.?
we already had the 2 hour before / after protest law, you don't see the government one-upping it and saying you can't protest the government 10 hours or after a bill has passed do you? this is a retarded concept and statement, protest is supposed to have meaning, not to spite others into hurting or suing them so they can make money off of it, get off your moral high horse.
SHIT, CAN NO LONGER PROTEST A GRIEVING FAMILY'S FUNERAL WHICH HAS NO MEANING NOR RESULTS, FIRST AMENDMENT DEAD, WE CAN'T SAY SHIT WITHOUT BIG BROTHER BREATHING DOWN OUR SHOULDERS, ACLU! ACLU![/QUOTE]
Hey guy.
Learn to history.
We already did this slippery slope thing once- it was called the Palmer Raids. And then twice- McCarthyism. Even the implication of opposing the current regime in any way- through criticism of any sort, lead to the detention of nearly tens of thousands of American citizens on the basis that their criticisms could lead, eventually, to damaging the governmental regime. You seem to forget that there was a slippery slope and we fell down it, and it's taken us 70 years to climb back up that slope, and now that we're nearing the top, you want to start limiting people's speech again?
Here's the difference between ordinances and this bill- ordinances are in place for PRACTICAL UTILITARIAN REASONS which are NON-PARTISAN and deal with things like "This blocks traffic. This blocks walkways. This is physical harassment. This is a public inconvenience. This damages people's property. This keeps people up at an unreasonable hour." What this bill is proposing is targeting a single ideological minority using a specific and legal practice to exert their rights and establish their message. You are trying to WIPE OUT and CENSOR the speech and the rights of a group of people because YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAY and that THEIR CRITICISMS IN A PUBLIC PLACE [U]NEAR[/U] A VOLUNTARY PRIVATE GATHERING can cause emotional distress.
The hypocrisy of liberals. Protect all freedoms as long as they aren't used to harm someone's moral senses.
I also want to point out here that no one here except me and the attempt by the one guy seems to have any understanding of the law and legality concerning this topic, and any understanding of why that is. It's like everyone is attempting to make their moral opinions the truth of things because that's what they believe. There are reasons that the laws are how they are. There are reason why my argument is the same as the Supreme Court. Think about that.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37116346']Hey guy.
Learn to history.
We already did this slippery slope thing once- it was called the Palmer Raids. And then twice- McCarthyism. Even the implication of opposing the current regime in any way- through criticism of any sort, lead to the detention of nearly tens of thousands of American citizens on the basis that their criticisms could lead, eventually, to damaging the governmental regime. You seem to forget that there was a slippery slope and we fell down it, and it's taken us 70 years to climb back up that slope, and now that we're nearing the top, you want to start limiting people's speech again?
Here's the difference between ordinances and this bill- ordinances are in place for PRACTICAL UTILITARIAN REASONS which are NON-PARTISAN and deal with things like "This blocks traffic. This blocks walkways. This is physical harassment. This is a public inconvenience. This damages people's property. This keeps people up at an unreasonable hour." What this bill is proposing is targeting a single ideological minority using a specific and legal practice to exert their rights and establish their message. You are trying to WIPE OUT and CENSOR the speech and the rights of a group of people because YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAY and that THEIR CRITICISMS IN A PUBLIC PLACE [U]NEAR[/U] A VOLUNTARY PRIVATE GATHERING can cause emotional distress.
The hypocrisy of liberals. Protect all freedoms as long as they aren't used to harm someone's moral senses.
I also want to point out here that no one here except me and the attempt by the one guy seems to have any understanding of the law and legality concerning this topic, and any understanding of why that is. It's like everyone is attempting to make their moral opinions the truth of things because that's what they believe. There are reasons that the laws are how they are. There are reason why my argument is the same as the Supreme Court. Think about that.[/QUOTE]
So they get away with it just because the funeral is private? What if the funeral were made public?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;37120525]So they get away with it just because the funeral is private? What if the funeral were made public?[/QUOTE]
do you understand what public means? it means anyone can go, including WBC.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;37074868]
Let's hope the US shoves them out our door also.[/QUOTE]
If they were based in Canada, then the US would be able to bar them from entering America
It's something to do with immigration laws that doesn't allow the WBC to enter Canada, not speech laws
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37120776]do you understand what public means? it means anyone can go, including WBC.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. Public means arranged by the state. Not necessarily open to everyone. There's a ton of state-arranged shit that pale blobs like you and i can't and really wouldn't attend.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;37121808]Not exactly. Public means arranged by the state. Not necessarily open to everyone. There's a ton of state-arranged shit that pale blobs like you and i can't and really wouldn't attend.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Then what would be the difference between a public and private funeral? The WBC would just do the same shit. What point are you trying to make with the whole "public" thing?
This isn't limiting anyones rights. Tell me what other situation someone would protest at a military funeral that would actually have good intentions?
Death and the ceremonies following death are sacred to our culture and protecting the families of those who died to protect the freedom of our country is in no way violating the constitution, as they can protest at literally any other place AND can protest at limited times during the funeral as long as they stay away from the family.
The point of a protest is to catch the public attention to a certain event, not a specific family or try to harass them, so if these people are truly protesting then the location of 300 feet away and only at certain times during the funeral is perfectly fine since the public will still see them. Of course we know they are not protesting truly, so of course this severely limits them, as they were abusing the rights that we have come to love. So honestly, this does not affect any true protester in any shape or form and serves its purpose to stop harassment of people who deserve peace for the actions of their loved ones in our service.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;37075123]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]
You can try and justify however you want, but it's still obviously a massive restriction of the first amendment.
[editline]7th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=1chains1;37122009]This isn't limiting anyones rights. Tell me what other situation someone would protest at a military funeral that would actually have good intentions?[/QUOTE]
This doesn't matter at all. Do you not know how law works? Clearly you don't.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37121895]I'm not sure where you're going with this. Then what would be the difference between a public and private funeral? The WBC would just do the same shit. What point are you trying to make with the whole "public" thing?[/QUOTE]
That they can be politely asked by security to evacuate the premises or face legal shitstorms.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;37120525]So they get away with it just because the funeral is private? What if the funeral were made public?[/QUOTE]
That wouldn't solve anything. The reason why WBC can protest loud and proud where they do is because they protest on public land. The problem can be fixed by either not having a funeral at all, having the funeral farther away from public land, or not announcing its location. Because we have to right to use public land to express ourselves, it falls on the funeral goers to circumvent WBC.
[editline]7th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bomimo;37122455]That they can be politely asked by security to evacuate the premises or face legal shitstorms.[/QUOTE]
Only if they were like actually in the ceremony, or if there was a security reason. Ultimately it would just give them more range to work with because if it was a public ceremony then they wouldn't have to abide by the "sidewalk/across the street" rules and could get even closer.
As much as I hate the WBC, they have the right to protest as much as they want. These restrictions are limiting their right to free speech. Next thing you know they are going to pass laws saying you can't protest.
That being said, the cemetary can have the WBC arrested for trespassing on private property.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37111607]Yes, unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
You are crazier than I ever imagined.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.