Lawmakers ban picketing of funerals in Arizona

[WillowTree]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...ation-siding-with-westboro-churchs-right.html









here you can re visit free speech and flag burning.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I don't see three hundred feet making much difference.

State lawmakers Tuesday passed legislation that makes protests illegal within 300 feet of any home, house of worship, cemetery, or funeral home just before, during, or after a ceremony or burial.

Funeral protest: Arizona rallies to foil Westboro Baptist Church - CSMonitor.com

I also don't know what to think of this...is it not against the first amendment to pass such a law? And aren't the rightwingloons up in arms about silencing vitriolic hate speech?

crap

I have to agree with Ravi.

It's a violation of free speach. As evil as these fucks are, they have the right to be assholes in public. We can't allow shit stains like these to get us to do away with our freedoms.

The Father in me would like to take a baseball bat to these things.
The Constitutionalist says we need to have free speech, warts and all.

 

[Ravi]

Nope, when these freaks were picketing the funerals of soldiers the liberals upheld the "free speech" doctrine..

That simply is not true, WillyT. Please stop using this to beat up on liberals. They are equally as outraged as you are. It is not a competition to see who can be more offended by WBC.

It is true. I've been in this conversation before with liberals when the subject was picketing the soldiers funerals and their answer always was.. Free Speech. Please don't pretend I don't know what I'm saying. I wouldn't say it if I had not experienced it.

In other words, you agree with the "liberals" on this issue. Maybe we should put you on suicide watch.

 

[WillowTree]

That simply is not true, WillyT. Please stop using this to beat up on liberals. They are equally as outraged as you are. It is not a competition to see who can be more offended by WBC.

It is true. I've been in this conversation before with liberals when the subject was picketing the soldiers funerals and their answer always was.. Free Speech. Please don't pretend I don't know what I'm saying. I wouldn't say it if I had not experienced it.

In other words, you agree with the "liberals" on this issue. Maybe we should put you on suicide watch.

yes, why don't you

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I hope this goes to all 50 states. It should be common sense. You DON'T picket funerals. It's a vile and disgusting thing to do.

It's sounding like Sarah Palin & Fred Phelps are two NUTS in the same shell.....​

"Nate Phelps, an estranged son of Rev. Phelps, says the only point of the protests is to GET ATTENTION. Phelps doesn't care if he attracts a single follower to his religious views."

 

[goldcatt]

I hope this goes to all 50 states. It should be common sense. You DON'T picket funerals. It's a vile and disgusting thing to do.

It's sounding like Sarah Palin & Fred Phelps are two NUTS in the same shell.....​

"Nate Phelps, an estranged son of Rev. Phelps, says the only point of the protests is to GET ATTENTION. Phelps doesn't care if he attracts a single follower to his religious views."

Much as I dislike Palin, putting her in the same category as Phelps is uncalled for.

 

[Sallow]

I could give a shit what it falls under..and one could make a case it is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

This is something no human being should be asked to do..and that is..not to protest a funeral.

It's as a solemn event as your going to get in Human culture..all of them.

People in mourning deserve..well..have the absolute right..to mourn without "the noise" and in peace.

This is something so basic..it never should need to be legislated.

They have agreed to NOT protest the little girl's funeral...but ONLY in exchange for free air time on local radio and TV.

Furthermore, they still will protest at the other 5 funerals.

What does that tell you about these people?

That they're attention whoring assholes, of course. But we already knew that.

Now that's an insult to attention whoring assholes. They are far worse.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wont hold up. But it might by alittle time for atleast alittle while.

 

[California Girl]

Wont hold up. But it might by alittle time for atleast alittle while.

It should hold up. It is reasoned and legitimate. When will people learn that with rights comes responsibility? I have the right to speak freely, I have the responsibility to not use my right to deliberately inflict emotional distress on a grieving family. Ain't that hard.

 

[goldcatt]

Wont hold up. But it might by alittle time for atleast alittle while.

I haven't seen the exact language, but as long as it's narrowly tailored enough why not? It's just a TPM restriction, nothing new.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have the right to speak freely, I have the responsibility to not use my right to deliberately inflict emotional distress on a grieving family. Ain't that hard.

The responsibility perhaps. The obligation? No.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is a clear violation of the First Amendment and should be overturned in court. As much as I agree with all of you that the practices of the Westboro Baptist Church are vile, passing laws like this is how we start down the road to government taking our rights away piece by piece. Today it's banning wacko funeral protesters, but what will the new problem be tomorrow?

I don't agree with you on this one. I feel it falls in the same realm as yelling fire in a theatre.

I don't think it does. Yelling fire in a crowded theater can directly lead to physical harm and even death. What the Westboro wackos do may inflict emotional distress, but nobody is being physically harmed by it or dying as a result.

 

[Trajan]

the Westboro case was heard by the Supreme Court believe in Oct. and we await their decision. I have a feeling they will find for the 'Church'.

As much as I think they are scum, there is no guarantee or defense against hearing speech you don't like sans 'harm'...which has been turned into a miasma via hate speech decisions etc. The first amend. is what it is.




An appeal by WBC was heard on September 24, 2009. The federal appeals court ruled in favor of Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church, stating that their picket near the funeral of LCpl Matthew A. Snyder is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing the lower court's $5 million judgment.[56] On March 30, 2010, the federal appeals court ordered Albert Snyder to pay the court costs for the Westboro Baptist Church, an amount totaling $16,510.[57] Political commentator Bill O'Reilly agreed on March 30 to cover the costs, pending appeal.[58]

A writ of certiorari was granted on an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the oral argument for the case took place on October 6, 2010. Megan Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' children, represented the Westboro Baptist Church. [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

 

[uptownlivin90]

This is a clear violation of the First Amendment and should be overturned in court. As much as I agree with all of you that the practices of the Westboro Baptist Church are vile, passing laws like this is how we start down the road to government taking our rights away piece by piece. Today it's banning wacko funeral protesters, but what will the new problem be tomorrow?

I don't agree with you on this one. I feel it falls in the same realm as yelling fire in a theatre.

....Or, antagonizing a wounded-animal, for the sheer entertainment of it.​

From what I understand, that's not illegal.

But just ask Steve Irwin what happens to people who do.

We don't need to make a law about antagonizing people and animals. Nature already has laws about that. Eventually nature will take it's course with Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I'd line up about 50 AR totin peaceful citizens in front of the westboro church members.

Here in Missouri, there are motorcycle clubs that attend the funerals of fallen soldiers and block and intimidate these sick morons. I think a law should be passed but worded in a manner specifically designed to prevent harassment at funerals. I would be thrown in jail if a loved one or friends funeral was invaded by scum like these people. I would stomp the crap out of the first one I could get my hands on.

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/201...-protest-at-9-yr-old-christina-green-funeral/
Westboro Baptist Church to Protest at 9-yr-old Christina Green Funeral

 

[goldcatt]

the Westboro case was heard by the Supreme Court believe in Oct. and we await their decision. I have a feeling they will find for the 'Church'.

As much as I think they are scum, there is no guarantee or defense against hearing speech you don't like sans 'harm'...which has been turned into a miasma via hate speech decisions etc. The first amend. is what it is.




An appeal by WBC was heard on September 24, 2009. The federal appeals court ruled in favor of Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church, stating that their picket near the funeral of LCpl Matthew A. Snyder is protected speech and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family, reversing the lower court's $5 million judgment.[56] On March 30, 2010, the federal appeals court ordered Albert Snyder to pay the court costs for the Westboro Baptist Church, an amount totaling $16,510.[57] Political commentator Bill O'Reilly agreed on March 30 to cover the costs, pending appeal.[58]

A writ of certiorari was granted on an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the oral argument for the case took place on October 6, 2010. Megan Phelps, one of Fred Phelps' children, represented the Westboro Baptist Church. [5]

Fred Phelps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're right, it was Matthew Snyder...and I was thinking of the Circuit decision. Color me embarrassed for going on memory.

But the case didn't revolve around the picket at the funeral directly. Matthew Snyder's father testified he did not even see the WBC until after the fact. He sued the WBC for intentional infliction of emotional distress among other state level tort claims after viewing a "documentary" of the protest on WBC's website. The legal question to be resolved was whether the images and certain statements made by WBC on their website were protected speech.

I looked up the decision this time.

No. 08-1026. - SNYDER v. PHELPS - US 4th Circuit


IOW, the case is only tangentially related to this issue. Why? Because the presence of the protesters or their distance from the church was irrelevant to the speech in question in that case: The video on WBC's website. The only way it really applies is to show as an example that the WBC was granted a permit to protest at a distance from the funeral, no speech rights were violated in doing so, and (if Mr. Snyder had not googled for the video on WBC's website and chosen to watch it) it would have worked to shield the family from the protest completely.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Funerals aren't usually on public land. Most cemeteries are privately or family or church owned. Most people PAY for their burial plot and their burial/cremation service, thus, this is not a first amendment rights issue. If cemetary owners can't keep these disgusting "church" people away from people's private burial rites, then yes, states should be able to outlaw it and arrest these douchebags if they show up.