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

[Artevelde]

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?

Do you feel that everything that shows disrespect should be outlawed? How repressive of freedom do you want to be?

 

[Noomi]

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?

Do you feel that everything that shows disrespect should be outlawed? How repressive of freedom do you want to be?

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

Protesting at a funeral should never be allowed. Staging a pro gay marriage protest right outside a church which is holding mass is also offensive and disrespectful. I am not religious but people have the right to attend their services without being interrupted.
There is a time and place for everything.

 

[Swagger]

I think the biggest bone of contention held against WBC is that almost no-one anticipated anyone carrying out such an abhorant act as loudly protesting at a funeral: a revered and solemn event universally regarded as sacrosanct by almost all of earth's cultures.

I've always regarded it as a publicity stunt co-ordinated by an attention-seeking group lead by a ruthless lawyer, which is what Fred Phelps is. Furthermore, I also get the impression that the 'movement' has been hijacked by members of Phelps' family who truly believe that God hates so many of his flock, and has departed from what Phelps originally planned it to be, a money spinner. I base this on the BBC documentary, The Most Hated Family in America, into the WBC by the investigative reporter Louis Theroux. Seeking interviews with Phelps proved difficult. But the reason behind that difficulty became apparent as soon as the reporter gained access to Phelps. He was a prisoner in his own home. He wasn't allowed out without an escort and was under the thumb of his daughter. He had the look of a man who'd lost control of everything, and was locked in the asylum by those he'd intended on taking advantage of.

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.

 

[Ravi]

People have a right to say stupid things and we also have the right to point out their hateful bigotry.

Bad law.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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 Agree, I think a Reasonable Society can place limits in places like a Cemetery during a Funeral and not Lose their rights all together.

Though I do agree the SCOTUS will likely over turn this.

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

 

[Artevelde]

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?

Do you feel that everything that shows disrespect should be outlawed? How repressive of freedom do you want to be?

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

Protesting at a funeral should never be allowed. Staging a pro gay marriage protest right outside a church which is holding mass is also offensive and disrespectful. I am not religious but people have the right to attend their services without being interrupted.
There is a time and place for everything.

Many people find gay pride parades with their extravangant behavior offensive. Shall we outlaw them too?

The whole point of free speech protection is to protect offensive speech.

 

[Katzndogz]

There have always been time and place restrictions on speech. This is nothing new. No one is prohibiting what Westboro says, just when and where they say it. It's not like they are protesting for traditional marriage or anything really hateful.

 

[rightwinger]

There have always been time and place restrictions on speech. This is nothing new. No one is prohibiting what Westboro says, just when and where they say it. It's not like they are protesting for traditional marriage or anything really hateful.

The court has to review the restrictions and determine if they are reasonable and restrict free speech. I can put restrictions that you can only protest a mile deep in the woods at midnight and it won't pass muster

I don't think allowing protest before anyone gets there and after everyone leaves will pass muster either

 

[Si modo]

People have a right to say stupid things and we also have the right to point out their hateful bigotry.

Bad law.

Some things are just non-partisan.

 

[nitroz]

Westboro is going to be in my area soon, so I'm going to see about helping out in any way I can to take the fallen soldier's family's mind off of them.

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

 

[BluePhantom]

As vile and disgusting as Westboro Baptist "Church" is, they have a constitutionally protected right to protest as they see fit provided they are not on private land without permission and they are doing so peacefully. Government limiting speech that is unpopular is a dangerous and slippery slope. It opens the door to further limitations on speech that might not be so universally despised. This law is as offensive as WBC's views. The good news is that it will get thrown out by the SCOTUS.

 

[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"?

 

[rightwinger]

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"?

As offensive as it is....yes, it is OK

It is the reason we have a first amendment.

 

[BluePhantom]

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?

Yep. That's what the United States is about. A true patriot would fight passionately for someone's right to express a view that they would spend their entire lifetime fighting against.

Ever hear of "inciting a riot"?

As long as they don't throw the first brick, exactly who would be inciting the riot?

 

[Intense]

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.

 

[Intense]

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.

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.

 

[Borillar]

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!

Seems akin to Bush's "Free Speech Zones". While I find the Westboro Baptist Church's speech and actions appalling and reprehensible, it should be protected by the 1st amendment. This will likely be overturned should it go to court.

 

[Borillar]

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

You don't remember Bush's "Free Speech Zones"?

 

[catzmeow]

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.