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

[catzmeow]

Why? They're not denying them their right to protest, they're simply creating reasonable conditions under which they can protest to promote public safety.

Namely, their own safety.

Can you see where that might lead? Protest zones, well removed from political candidates, for instance, all in the guise of protecting public safety.

I call bullshit. Government, particularly the federal government, does not have a role in this situation. It's yet another form of undermining free speech, under the mask of protection.

People need to wake up.

Simple Distinction. A Funeral is Not a Political Event. Further, it is Private. I'd agree with you, that the Protestors have the Right to Protest, so I don't support the Time Restriction, I do support the consideration of it being placed out of Earshot, as it is disruptive. People attending a Funeral, have a Right to be left alone.

They are protesting on public ground.

 

[catzmeow]

Of course not. But I think that some things do cross a line.

Whose line? You feel offended by this, so these protests should be silenced?

Protesting at a funeral should never be allowed.

The protests occur on public sidewalks outside of private property. The first amendment restrains government interference in free speech. So, never allowed by whom? You think it is government's job to protect people from unpleasantness? That would be a major expansion of governmental authority and would remove many of the protections of the bill of rights.

Staging a pro gay marriage protest right outside a church which is holding mass is also offensive and disrespectful.

PEople in the U.S. to not have a right to live lives free from offense and disrespect. They do have a right to free speech untrammeled by government interference.

I am not religious but people have the right to attend their services without being interrupted.

Really. Where is that right spelled out in the bill of rights and/or constitution?

 

[catzmeow]

I like this bill because it does NOT mitigate free speech, but instead provides a curfew for those who would cause a disturbance.

You're mistaken. It actually puts government smack in the middle of determining which speech is offensive and should be prohibited, and then allows government to curtail people's free speech rights on public property. Your statement about this law is patently false.

 

[Si modo]

So the public burning of the Bible, Koran, crosses, stars or flags along with defilement of images or symbols considered holy or patriotic is always OK with some of y'all?

Ever hear of "inciting a riot"?

And, that doctrine would not apply to your example.

in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.

The fighting-words doctrine was again reaffirmed in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969). After publicly burning an American flag and making defiant comments regarding the flag, Street was convicted of violating a New York statute making it a misdemeanor to "publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon an American flag either by words or act." The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.

....

It was not until 20 years later that the Court again had the opportunity to fully analyze the fighting-words doctrine. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Court considered the constitutionality of a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance that prohibited fighting words on the "basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The defendant was one of several teen-agers to be charged with violating the ordinance after burning a cross on an African-American family's lawn. The Supreme Court determined that the ordinance was facially unconstitutional because it prohibited speech on the basis of its content. The majority reasoned that even if the ordinance reached only unprotected fighting words, the city still could not constitutionally regulate only certain types of fighting words on the basis of their content. By prohibiting not all fighting words but only those of a particularly offensive nature, the statute ran afoul of the Constitution.

Notably, the Court in R.A.V. admitted that fighting words sometimes have value as speech, stating:

It is not true that "fighting words" have at most a "di minimus" expressive content, or that their content is in all respects "worthless and undeserving of constitutional protection"; sometimes they are quite expressive indeed. We have not said that they constitute "no part of the expression of ideas," but only that they constitute "no essential part of any expression of ideas."

Explaining that fighting words do not express any particular idea but are merely a mode of communicating other ideas, the Court warned that if government regulates the content of ideas, rather than the mode of delivery, the Court will strike down the regulation, even if only "unprotected" speech is affected.​

freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

 

[Plasmaball]

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 don't see any problem at all with an Ordinance that places the Protest a Minimum distance from the Funeral Service and Burial.

That's not the constitutional standard. The government has to provide a compelling argument that such restrictions on free speech are needed, not show that it is "not any problem at all." The first amendment restrains government incursions on free speech except in cases where these incursions are necessary for serious reasons. People attending a funeral and having their feelings hurt by a nasty display is insufficient to allow the government to trample on the first amendment.

both the DNC and RNC during the conventions have it so protesters are miles away in a protest zone.

statute is already there for this to be upheld if they are put into "protest areas".

 

[9thIDdoc]

So the public burning of the Bible, Koran, crosses, stars or flags along with defilement of images or symbols considered holy or patriotic is always OK with some of y'all?

Ever hear of "inciting a riot"?

And, that doctrine would not apply to your example.

in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.

The fighting-words doctrine was again reaffirmed in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969). After publicly burning an American flag and making defiant comments regarding the flag, Street was convicted of violating a New York statute making it a misdemeanor to "publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon an American flag either by words or act." The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.

....

It was not until 20 years later that the Court again had the opportunity to fully analyze the fighting-words doctrine. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Court considered the constitutionality of a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance that prohibited fighting words on the "basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The defendant was one of several teen-agers to be charged with violating the ordinance after burning a cross on an African-American family's lawn. The Supreme Court determined that the ordinance was facially unconstitutional because it prohibited speech on the basis of its content. The majority reasoned that even if the ordinance reached only unprotected fighting words, the city still could not constitutionally regulate only certain types of fighting words on the basis of their content. By prohibiting not all fighting words but only those of a particularly offensive nature, the statute ran afoul of the Constitution.

Notably, the Court in R.A.V. admitted that fighting words sometimes have value as speech, stating:

It is not true that "fighting words" have at most a "di minimus" expressive content, or that their content is in all respects "worthless and undeserving of constitutional protection"; sometimes they are quite expressive indeed. We have not said that they constitute "no part of the expression of ideas," but only that they constitute "no essential part of any expression of ideas."

Explaining that fighting words do not express any particular idea but are merely a mode of communicating other ideas, the Court warned that if government regulates the content of ideas, rather than the mode of delivery, the Court will strike down the regulation, even if only "unprotected" speech is affected.​

freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

So you are OK with those acts.
I'm not. I don't know of any constitution right to harass.

 

[Si modo]

So the public burning of the Bible, Koran, crosses, stars or flags along with defilement of images or symbols considered holy or patriotic is always OK with some of y'all?

Ever hear of "inciting a riot"?

And, that doctrine would not apply to your example.

in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.

The fighting-words doctrine was again reaffirmed in Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969). After publicly burning an American flag and making defiant comments regarding the flag, Street was convicted of violating a New York statute making it a misdemeanor to "publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon an American flag either by words or act." The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.

....

It was not until 20 years later that the Court again had the opportunity to fully analyze the fighting-words doctrine. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Court considered the constitutionality of a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance that prohibited fighting words on the "basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." The defendant was one of several teen-agers to be charged with violating the ordinance after burning a cross on an African-American family's lawn. The Supreme Court determined that the ordinance was facially unconstitutional because it prohibited speech on the basis of its content. The majority reasoned that even if the ordinance reached only unprotected fighting words, the city still could not constitutionally regulate only certain types of fighting words on the basis of their content. By prohibiting not all fighting words but only those of a particularly offensive nature, the statute ran afoul of the Constitution.

Notably, the Court in R.A.V. admitted that fighting words sometimes have value as speech, stating:

It is not true that "fighting words" have at most a "di minimus" expressive content, or that their content is in all respects "worthless and undeserving of constitutional protection"; sometimes they are quite expressive indeed. We have not said that they constitute "no part of the expression of ideas," but only that they constitute "no essential part of any expression of ideas."

Explaining that fighting words do not express any particular idea but are merely a mode of communicating other ideas, the Court warned that if government regulates the content of ideas, rather than the mode of delivery, the Court will strike down the regulation, even if only "unprotected" speech is affected.​

freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

So you are OK with those acts.
I'm not. I don't know of any constitution right to harass.

Who said I was OK with them?

Oh, that was you.

I won't be playing with your strawman.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's not the constitutional standard. The government has to provide a compelling argument that such restrictions on free speech are needed, not show that it is "not any problem at all." The first amendment restrains government incursions on free speech except in cases where these incursions are necessary for serious reasons. People attending a funeral and having their feelings hurt by a nasty display is insufficient to allow the government to trample on the first amendment.

There is a compelling reason:

Strong emotional distress that can lead to violence when presented with deplorable behavior such as this.

And the Westboro church has no compelling reason to protest specifically at the funerals in question. They can make their political statement wherever they want. They don't have to actually do it within earshot of the mourners.

If this were a political convention, or a public government building, then sure. But a Funeral is not a political rally.

 

[Vast LWC]

Lastly, a little-known fact that I've yet to see mentioned in this thread (though apologies if I've missed it) is that the WBC are entitled to compensation from Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 when their protests have been unlawfully disrupted.

Very interesting.

That provides some insight into the whole movement.

Thanks.

Perhaps we need to have Congress look into the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, to make an exception when the intent of the protest is likely simply be an attempt to defraud the government.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is direct response to Westboro and no one else, I know of no other group that protests at funerals, so it is very targeted.

That's only because Westboro is the first group to do it (because no-one else has yet sunk to their disgusting level).

The law is worded in a way that is obviously meant to protect the mourners, not to attack the protesters right to protest.

I don't see where it states the WBC can't protest in other locations, at other times, or even near the location in question at the same time.

 

[Vast LWC]

To me, it's like "The People vs Larry Flint"

Even though his material is offensive he has a first amendment right to publish it. Protest was the intention of the first amendment, even if most find that protest offensive

Larry Flint wasn't posting giant billboards showing lewd sex acts next to elementary schools...

That is the equivalent here.

 

[Valerie]

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.

It's a right to "peaceably assemble" and nobody's "freedom of speech" is actually abridged by virtue of drawing a rational line around certain circumstances of potential volatility where peaceable assembly can still be assured a certain distance or time period apart...


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Who said I was OK with them?

Oh, that was you.

I won't be playing with your strawman"

No strawman intended. You used considerable space defending the legality of some of the acts I listed and never actually answered the question.

 

[GHook93]

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!

It's about time! What took so long?

 

[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.

It's a right to "peaceably assemble" and nobody's "freedom of speech" is actually abridged by virtue of drawing a rational line around certain circumstances of potential volatility where peaceable assembly can still be assured a certain distance or time period apart...


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And this is an abridgement of freedom of speech.

If you scroll up, I posted to a link with quick summaries of landmark First Amendment cases and some excerpts of the analysis. I think it gives a good case law situation of where freedom of speech stands. I found it interesting and gave me encouragement that our courts really do strongly respect the First.

If this passes and if WBC doesn't challenge it, I strongly suspect the ACLU will.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I tend to find myself hating their message with all my heart, but defending their right to deliver it how they please. It's not cool to the families of the killed soldiers for them to protest; and it certainly doesn't seem Christian of them at all. But I personally feel like the only way society ever really rids itself of a terrible group like this is to confront it, and to allow them to take themselves out by just letting them talk.

That said, many of our freedoms and rights come with reasonable limits. You can't drink and drive. You can own a gun, but you're not allowed to murder people with it. Limits on rights are not a bad thing, in my mind; they're a reflection on a society's ability to recognize natural and logical places to keep the train from going off the tracks, as it were. I'm not sure how I feel about this decision actually.

 

[MikeK]

Physically impeding access is not speech -- anymore than money is speech. Speech is speech. It is the expression of a thought, an idea, or an opinion via the spoken or the written word.

So those right-wing fanatics who support the judgment against these protesters need to call for a Supreme Court reversal of the Citizens United farce.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Physically impeding access is not speech -- anymore than money is speech. Speech is speech. It is the expression of an idea or opinion via the spoken or the written word.

So those right-wing fanatics who support the judgment against these protesters need to call for a Supreme Court reversal of the Citizens United farce.

This I concur with wholeheartedly.

 

[Vast LWC]

Physically impeding access is not speech -- anymore than money is speech. Speech is speech. It is the expression of a thought, an idea, or an opinion via the spoken or the written word.

So those right-wing fanatics who support the judgment against these protesters need to call for a Supreme Court reversal of the Citizens United farce.

Who's a "right-wing fanatic"?

And I do call for a reversal of Citizens United every chance I get.

Here, I'll do it again:

REVERSE CITIZENS UNITED!

 

[Caroljo]

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.

The court has long upheld that obscene speech can be limited.

Its hard to imagine how a reasonable person wouldn't view this form of speech as obscene.

I wouldnt call what they say obscene...mostly...maybe the God hates Fags stuff. But the God hates YOU stuff...not obscene just a really really messed up opinion.

In just wish theyd find a better forum to express that opinion...

like Foo Fighters concerts! ( God I love the Foo! )

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWSeDYTHtiQ]Foo Fighters sing to Westboro in counter-protest - YouTube[/ame]

and ComicCon!

Super Heroes vs. the Westboro Baptist Church - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Yup....it really pisses me off when they say God hates Fags....and especially when they say God wants soldiers to die!

I'm all for free speech....but there is a limit to what someone should get away with. When it spews hate like they do, it has to be stopped. I'm really glad congress passed this....and i can't imagine Obama not signing it!