OK, it is rare that I will cheer restrictions on 1st Amendment rights, but...

[Si modo]

YES!

Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

And here's something else I'll hardly ever say:

GO CONGRESS!

I loathe WBC. I loathe what they do and what they say.

But, what I loathe even more is such infringement on offensive speech veiled in "for their own safety".

What's next? No protests two hours before and two hours after a political speech?

If this passes, I hope WBC challenges it based on 1st Amendment rights.


First Amendment rights are more important than folks being offended. We don't need government for this - the People are also practicing their free speech rights. That's a good part of the theory behind free speech.

 

[hjmick]

YES!

Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

And here's something else I'll hardly ever say:

GO CONGRESS!

While I understand your feelings, and I share your distaste for Westboro, I can not support Congress' decision here.

It is the speech we most disagree with that needs to be protected. It is easy to support those with whom we agree, it is only when we stand up and defend the speech of those whose views most offend us that the First Amendment works best.

 

[Papageorgio]

Two wrongs don't make a right, a strong constitution should be the final say and now Congress is, it sets a bad precedent.

 

[Valerie]

Good! There is no 1st Amendment right to harass private funerals.

 

[Si modo]

Good! There is no 1st Amendment right to harass private funerals.

But there is the 1st Amendment right to free assembly and speech. It's an inherent right guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Sallow]

Offensive speech is exactly what needs protecting.

And here's where the old "Your rights end when they interfere with my rights" maxim comes in.

Most funerals are solemn religious ceremonies. And the 1st amendment guarantees the right to free religious expression.

 

[Si modo]

Offensive speech is exactly what needs protecting.

And here's where the old "Your rights end when they interfere with my rights" maxim comes in.

Most funerals are solemn religious ceremonies. And the 1st amendment guarantees the right to free religious expression.

Where is your or anyone's Constitutional right not to be offended, whether at a funeral or not?

 

[Vast LWC]

According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," 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.

The courts will likely be called upon to determine if these restrictions constitute unwarranted prior restraint.

Under nearly every theory of free speech, the right to free speech is at its core the right to communicate — to persuade and to inform people through the content of one’s message. The right must also generally include in considerable measure the right to offend people through that content, since much speech that persuades some people also offends others.

Persuading and informing people may certainly cause harm; the listeners might be persuaded to do harmful things. But the premise of modern First Amendment law is that the government generally may not (with a few narrow exceptions) punish speech because of a fear, even a justified fear, that people will make the wrong decisions based on that speech: “[T]he people in our democracy are entrusted with the responsibility for judging and evaluating the relative merits of conflicting arguments.... f there be any danger that the people cannot evaluate the information and arguments advanced by [speakers], it is a danger contemplated by the Framers of the First Amendment.” Thus, punishing speech because its content persuades, informs, or offends especially conflicts with the free speech guarantee, more so than punishing speech for reasons unrelated to its potential persuasive, informative, or offensive effect.

The Volokh Conspiracy - Content-Based Speech Restrictions vs. Content-Neutral Speech Restrictions:

This legislation is not content-based, as it effects all protests at military funerals, not just protesters with a certain message.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why doesn't the government ever pass laws designed to target Liberal protesters (Liberals protest more and are far more disruptive)?

This law targets everyone.

It applies to all protests at military funerals.

Therefore, if some Liberal anti-war activists decided to do the same thing, (though I've never heard of that happening) they would also be stopped.

 

[Vast LWC]

How is it the same?

Because the intense emotional states of the people at a funeral can easily cause a riot, and thus a public safety hazard.

Just like fear would cause a stampeded in a theater.

 

[Vast LWC]

In this situation, I feel some of the Westboro defenders are not seeing the trees for the forest.

What about the right to privacy of the mourners?

Do I have the right to walk into a women's public restroom and start taking pictures?

Why not?

Do I have the right to walk into a public library and take a shit in the middle of the floor?

Why not?

 

[Si modo]

In this situation, I feel some of the Westboro defenders are not seeing the trees for the forest.

What about the right to privacy of the mourners?

Do I have the right to walk into a women's public restroom and start taking pictures?

Why not?

Do I have the right to walk into a public library and take a shit in the middle of the floor?

Why not?

There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. Certain aspects of privacy are protected - searches, for example. There IS a right to free assembly and speech.

 

[9thIDdoc]

This is a good law. It helps keep the peace which is what the law is there for.
Would it also be "free speech" to hold a Koran burning outside a Mosque?

 

[Ariux]

Why doesn't the government ever pass laws designed to target Liberal protesters (Liberals protest more and are far more disruptive)?

This law targets everyone.

It applies to all protests at military funerals.

Therefore, if some Liberal anti-war activists decided to do the same thing, (though I've never heard of that happening) they would also be stopped.

Maybe you're just obtuse? The law may apply to any point-of-view, but it was created with the intent to silence anti-fag protests. Why no laws laws that apply to any point-of-view but are created with the intent of stifling the message of Occupy protests?

Laws were created to push back protesters at Abortion clinics. Maybe those laws are nominally point-of-view neutral, but they were still deliberately crafted to affect only one point-of-view, the anti-abortion point of view. How about a point-of-view neutral law requiring Union protesters to be at least 300 yards from the property from any business they're picketing?

 

[Noomi]

Strongly suspect it will not be upheld by the supreme court, and it shouldn't be. Westboro Baptist Church is offensive, but living a life free of being offended is not a right.

I disagree. I think free speech is okay, but when it comes to vilifying the dead, you are causing even more stress to the families. Put yourself in the families shoes - how would you feel if you were mourning the loss of a loved one and someone showed up and started hurling insults at your deceased loved one? I wouldn't stand for it.

If its going to be legal for Phelps and his rabble to protest at funerals, then I think they should also be responsible for anything that happens to them as a result - if someone smacks them one for causing offence, tough shit.

 

[Ariux]

I disagree. I think free speech is okay, but when it comes to vilifying the dead, you are causing even more stress to the families. Put yourself in the families shoes - how would you feel if you were mourning the loss of a loved one and someone showed up and started hurling insults at your deceased loved one? I wouldn't stand for it.

Of course you disagree. As a fascist shithead, you have no real respect for freedom of speech in the first place.

So, you propose restricting speech when it makes people feel bad (including the dead?)? Of course, you only mean when it makes liberal shitheads feel bad...

(For the record, previous to these laws, the protesters were already so far away that the mourning families would hardly know they were around. The protesters were not disrupting funerals.)

 

[Noomi]

I disagree. I think free speech is okay, but when it comes to vilifying the dead, you are causing even more stress to the families. Put yourself in the families shoes - how would you feel if you were mourning the loss of a loved one and someone showed up and started hurling insults at your deceased loved one? I wouldn't stand for it.

Of course you disagree. As a fascist shithead, you have no real respect for freedom of speech in the first place.

So, you propose restricting speech when it makes people feel bad (including the dead?)? Of course, you only mean when it makes liberal shitheads feel bad...

(For the record, previous to these laws, the protesters were already so far away that the mourning families would hardly know they were around. The protesters were not disrupting funerals.)

They are still protesting and could possibly get close enough. Protesting at a funeral should not be allowed, period.

 

[Artevelde]

YES!

Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

And here's something else I'll hardly ever say:

GO CONGRESS!

I disagree.

First of all, this is a typical example of ad hoc legislation for media purposes only. That is always bad law.

Second, local disturbances and discussions about protest can best be addressed by local authorities. there is absolutely no reason for Congress to get involved, except for the irrespressible tendency some politicians have towards grandstanding.

Finally, while I find these protests disgusting and offensive, the very reason the First amendment exists is to protect offensive and disgusting speech.

 

[Artevelde]

I disagree. I think free speech is okay, but when it comes to vilifying the dead, you are causing even more stress to the families. Put yourself in the families shoes - how would you feel if you were mourning the loss of a loved one and someone showed up and started hurling insults at your deceased loved one? I wouldn't stand for it.

Of course you disagree. As a fascist shithead, you have no real respect for freedom of speech in the first place.

So, you propose restricting speech when it makes people feel bad (including the dead?)? Of course, you only mean when it makes liberal shitheads feel bad...

(For the record, previous to these laws, the protesters were already so far away that the mourning families would hardly know they were around. The protesters were not disrupting funerals.)

They are still protesting and could possibly get close enough. Protesting at a funeral should not be allowed, period.

Yes we know you are in favour of physical violence against people who say something you disagree with, but most of us value freedom of speech.

 

[Noomi]

Of course you disagree. As a fascist shithead, you have no real respect for freedom of speech in the first place.

So, you propose restricting speech when it makes people feel bad (including the dead?)? Of course, you only mean when it makes liberal shitheads feel bad...

(For the record, previous to these laws, the protesters were already so far away that the mourning families would hardly know they were around. The protesters were not disrupting funerals.)

They are still protesting and could possibly get close enough. Protesting at a funeral should not be allowed, period.

Yes we know you are in favour of physical violence against people who say something you disagree with, but most of us value freedom of speech.

I have respect for the dead, as that is the reason why I disagree with 'protesting' at funerals. Sometimes people deserve respect - you obviously believe that people deserve respect at times, so why support such disrespect?