Posted on 08/22/2008 5:12:26 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
Today's Phelps-Roper v. Strickland upholds a ban on "'picketing' or 'other protest activities,' within 300 feet of the funeral or burial service, from one hour before until one hour after the funeral or burial service." ("Other protest activities" is defined as "any action that is disruptive or undertaken to disrupt or disturb a funeral or burial service or a funeral procession.")
The court concludes that the ban is content-neutral, serves the important government interest in "protect[ing] the citizens of Ohio from disruption during the events associated with a funeral or burial service," including disruption in the sense of "unwanted communication that implicates ... privacy interests" of a "captive audience." And:
Individuals mourning the loss of a loved one share a privacy right similar to individuals in their homes or individuals entering a medical facility. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already recognized the privacy right of individuals to control the body and death images of deceased family members sufficient to prevent their disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. See Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004). In Favish, the Supreme Court held that an individual’s request for death scene photographs of a public official were protected from disclosure under Exemption 7(C) of the Act “when the family [of the decedent] objects to the release of photographs showing the condition of the body at the scene of death.” Id. at 160. The Court based its holding on cultural traditions and common law protections....
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
Good news!
PGR Ping.
Now, if he truly had the courage of his convictions, he would protest anyway. ;-)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The First Amendment should protect all forms of protest no matter how offensive.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Of course, the First Amendment does not protect one on private property but does if a person is on a public street just outside of a cemetery or abortion clinic.
Civilization would cease to function.
The court got the decision right but the reasoning wrong.
The court should have wrote: People have the right to assemble and associate freely without being disturbed by assholes.
If I can see this so should a judge.
“The First Amendment should protect all forms of protest no matter how offensive.”
Sorry, uncle. The people’s right to assemble is as important as the right to free speech. The people assembling on a set piece of property had the prior and superior claim in the 1st amendment. If not, Nazis could goosestep into synagogues and scream seig heil and claim 1st amendment rights. Don’t work that way.
No, Nazis could not goosestep their way into a synagogue since the First Amendment does not protect one's speech on someone else's private property.
However, Nazis could if they wished stand on the street outside a synagogue and yell seig heil all day long.
And a Pro Life Group can stand outside of a pro abortion church and protest all day long as long as they protest group did not enter onto private property.
The Westboro inbreeds are a blight on humanity.
The First Amendment should protect all forms of protest no matter how offensive
The inbreed morons of WestBoro are not prevented from protesting our exercising their Firts Admendment rights. What they are not allowed to do is disrupt, interfere with, our destroy other people lives, for their own perverse pleasure.
You have a right to speak freely but you have no right to enter my house to do so.
You can not yell fire in a theather. There are certain words that if you use them and strike certain human beings it will add years to your sentence.
What are you talking about?
The First Amendment should protect all forms of protest no matter how offensive.
You have the right to speak, and people have the right to listen - but people also have rights not to listen to your message. For example, you have a right to post pretty much anything you want on the internet, and yet to post on this site your posting is subject to the possible censorship of the moderators. If the moderator takes down your posting, your recourse is to form your own web site - but then, you have the problem of attracting an audience which posting on FR solves. The free speech on FR is not yours or mine, ultimately it is that of Jim Robinson - and his "speech" is to allow your post and mine to stand on FR - or not.The court properly held in this case that Westboro "Baptist Church" was exploiting the need of people to be at the funeral of a relative, friend or relative of a friend to force them to pay attention to their message. And they held that that was not in principle dissimilar to intruding into your home and yelling at you.
And they are correct in principle to accept reasonable restriction of time and place. For example: suppose that you reserve a place in a public park for a meeting to listen to a Republican speaker. I have a right to go to that place in a public park. Do I have a right to go to that meeting and verbally disrupt the speech which the rest of the attendees went to hear? I say, not at all - the attendees have the right to hear the scheduled speech and I have no right to interfere with their hearing it. To hold otherwise would be to allow the government to disrupt opposition meetings with brown shirts.
So I disagree with you inasmuch as you imply that events such as funerals and political rallies may be disrupted at will. There is such a thing as disrupting the peace, and preventing people from sleeping with your cacaphony of noise at 3 AM is and must be illegal - and disrupting a funeral is properly illegal also.
In the case of Westboro, there can't actually be any question about actually convincing anyone with their "speech" - it is simply being engaged in in order to offend and provoke. The state has an interest in preventing that sort of behavior before someone takes the bait and commits a felony in response to the provocation. Let Mr. Phelps work to communicate his message to the survivors of military casualties - if his message is so al-fired important let him pony up money and advertise in the paper in that community. Or let him find those survivors and try to get them to listen to his POV. Phelps is exploiting people at their most vulnerable, and he does not have a natural right to do so.
Extremely well said!
Whether a military family or any family, they have the right to have the service in peace, quiet and reverance and the court recognized that.
I agree. It should support the pummeling of Phelps and his gang in protest of their absurd behavior.
D.C. Chapter Master Ping List
GREAT NEWS - this one-branch family tree is finally having the tables turned on them.
Thank You Patriot Guard Riders and FReepers.
Thank God. If one one my sons were to die (G_d forbid), and those jerks showed up to protest, I would be posting this from prison.
That’s a load of crap. Protesting at a funeral falls well withing the fighting words exemption especially when part of the protest is calling the deceased a homosexual who is burning in Hell.
Phelps can peddle his hellspew on any street corner he wants, but funerals should be off limits. That’s not free speech, that’s harassment.
yaay!
(a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever--
(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;
In other words, the same law that prohibits Pro Life Activists from protesting at an Abortion Clinic also prohibits the Phelps creatures from protesting military funerals.
See post 23. The funerals of deceased military members are protected by the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act which not only “protects” women who are seeking abortions but also people is a worship service.
1. Private family gatherings where a hero who voluteered to lay down his life for his fellow Americans is laid to rest
2. Locations where people are turning small children into medical waste for profit
...and it makes you look silly at best.
Plus there's the fact that protesting a clinic requires protesting at the clinic (can't convince about-to-abort moms to keep their babies by protesting abortion in front of Wal-Mart) while protesting homosexality can be done anywhere.
These are not even remotely equivalent.
You do understand that I am not the person who wrote the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act?
However, it is the law that is protecting military funerals from the Phelps Mob.
Good, then some good finally came out of the evil of the abortion industry.
Whoever, by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person
. . . had better have a compelling case that their efforts were likely to do very real good. You would obviously be right to do that to me if (Heaven forfend) I were in the process of injuring a 3-year-old child, or an 80-year-old woman, for example.To argue that you would be right to do that, or anything like that, in order to express a political opinion at a funeral today (with ZERO actual expectation of convincing the target of your "protest" of anything other than that you are an abusive creep) which you could have expressed yesterday and could express tomorrow (but which you did not do, and have scant interest in doing) is IMHO unsupported by logic and inimical to American tradition.
As for me, I read the First Amendment as absolute. Thus, it should protect both the Abortion Protester, war protester and Phelps nutcase.
Unfortunately, The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act was passed by a Democratic Congress and President and limits the First Amendment Rights of Pro-Life Activists and the Phelps mob.
Due to its limitations on Free Speech, I oppose the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act.
Now, how about you? Do you support or oppose the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act?
And, you do understand that The United States Constitution and the Laws of the Land are not to be cherry picked. In other words, you have to accept the entirety of The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act or state that it is bad law and that both the Pro Life Activist and Phelps should not have their First Amendment Rights revoked by such a law.
The Phelps’s are despicable people. They are a stain upon the public fabric, looters in the aftermath of a familial disaster.
A very good description of Uncle Slayton's posts in this thread.
Merci, mon ami.
I love hearing this good news, I can’t stand this “church” group, yes they have a right to say whatever, but still don’t have to like them that is my right too..
If the First Amendment was an absolute, there would be no such thing as a slander or libel law, no such thing as "incitement to riot," no fighting words exemption, and we'd all be able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
For everyone to enjoy freedom, our rights must have boundaries that prevent them from destroying the rights of others. Otherwise it's like trying to have a real estate system where there's no property line and I can run my hedge through my neighbor's living room if I feel like it.
Now, how about you? Do you support or oppose the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act?
As has been noted, there are clear reasons why it is appropriate to ban these funeral protests but inappropriate to ban clinic protests.
To look at another example, a law restricting protest involving bullhorns or shouting because of noise concerns would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment if it was enforced at a construction site, but clearly appropriate at a hospital.
They can protest all they want as long as they do it 300 feet away.
Okay, but you still appear to be unwilling or unable to answer the question.
Now, here it is again:
Do you support or oppose the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act?
LOL!
You know, MK, if you want to pont him toward one of my posts again, say, post 36, I wouldn’t object. :-)
Yet again, you are still unwilling to answer a simply question and instead toss in an argument about private property which has nothing to do with protesters on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK outside of a cemetery or abortion clinic.
Furthermore, you cite slander, libel and incitement to riot which again have nothing whatsoever to do with a funeral protest of Pro-Life Rally.
Instead, you indicate that you support the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act only when it prevents Free Speech from a group you oppose but oppose the law when it prevents Free Speech of a group that you support.
Unfortunately, I can find no text in the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act, that states; “Mr. Silverback will determine which protests should be permitted and which should be prohibited.”
As for me, I hope and pray that the Phelps Morons take their case to the SCOTUS and win. A win for them would overturn the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act.
Once The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act is overturned, Pro-Life Activists could once again SAVE BABIES LIVES before their mom’s could kill them.
Again, do you support or oppose the Clinton The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act?
Here it is again:
Individuals mourning the loss of a loved one share a privacy right similar to individuals in their homes or individuals entering a medical facility.
Can you show me where in the Constitution there is a "Right to Privacy?" What do you suppose the court meant by the term "Medical Facility?"
Can you show me where in the Constitution the Framers wrote that all rights given by God are enumerated in the Constitution?
And can you read and grasp post 36?
I read 36 where you speak about private property, slander and libel all of which have nothing to do with the question at hand.
However, it is clear that you support a Court Ruling that cites both the Right to Privacy as defined by Roe v. Wade as well as the right for a woman to peacefully walk into an abortion clinic to kill her baby.
The Court ruling the you are supporting is build on the foundation of millions of American babies that have been slaughtered since the Roe v. Wade decision.
The sidewalk near a construction site or hospital (a real hospital, not an abortion clinic) is private property? Since when?
Furthermore, you cite slander, libel and incitement to riot which again have nothing whatsoever to do with a funeral protest of Pro-Life Rally.
I ask this in all seriousness...do you need contact information for an adult literacy program?
You said the right to free speech was an absolute. I said it had limits and cited examples of those limits: Libel, slander, incitement and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
So, do you still believe that the right to free speech is an absolute? Because if you do, then those restrictions I cited are just as invalid as the Clinic Entrance Act.
Unfortunately, I can find no text in the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act, that states; “Mr. Silverback will determine which protests should be permitted and which should be prohibited.”
Well then, it's fortunate that my argument doesn't remotely depend on that, or on anything remotely like it. My argument is that some locations and activities rquire limits on speech in order to protect the rights of others, and some don't. So, a limit could be perfectly appropriate and consistent with freedom in one place and ludicrous opppression in another.
If you're going to argue against me that's just ducky, but argue against my actual point. It makes it SO much more interesting for the reader.
Again, do you support or oppose the Clinton The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act?
I oppose the act, but it is (to be quite frank) moronic for you to treat that law like an on-off switch, so that if I (as an iron-clad pro-lifer and free speech advocate) oppose it I must then support Fred Phelps harassing the families of our war dead.
By what I see in this thread, if the court had used other reasoning to reach the same ruling, I would still approve of their ruling and you would still be cheering for Phelps to have this "right" to harass. In fact, I'm certain that would be the case, because you say the 1st Amendment is "absolute."
You do know what absolute means, right?
The sidewalk near a construction site or hospital (a real hospital, not an abortion clinic) is private property? Since when?
Furthermore, you cite slander, libel and incitement to riot which again have nothing whatsoever to do with a funeral protest of Pro-Life Rally.
I ask this in all seriousness...do you need contact information for an adult literacy program?
You said the right to free speech was an absolute. I said it had limits and cited examples of those limits: Libel, slander, incitement and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
So, do you still believe that the right to free speech is an absolute? Because if you do, then those restrictions I cited are just as invalid as the Clinic Entrance Act.
Unfortunately, I can find no text in the The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act, that states; “Mr. Silverback will determine which protests should be permitted and which should be prohibited.”
Well then, it's fortunate that my argument doesn't remotely depend on that, or on anything remotely like it. My argument is that some locations and activities rquire limits on speech in order to protect the rights of others, and some don't. So, a limit could be perfectly appropriate and consistent with freedom in one place and ludicrous opppression in another.
If you're going to argue against me that's just ducky, but argue against my actual point. It makes it SO much more interesting for the reader.
Again, do you support or oppose the Clinton The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act?
I oppose the act, but it is (to be quite frank) moronic for you to treat that law like an on-off switch, so that if I (as an iron-clad pro-lifer and free speech advocate) oppose it I must then support Fred Phelps harassing the families of our war dead.
By what I see in this thread, if the court had used other reasoning to reach the same ruling, I would still approve of their ruling and you would still be cheering for Phelps to have this "right" to harass. In fact, I'm certain that would be the case, because you say the 1st Amendment is "absolute."
You do know what absolute means, right?
I ask this in all seriousness...do you need contact information for an adult literacy program?
Do you need me to point out the spelling errors in your double post?
So, do you still believe that the right to free speech is an absolute? Because if you do, then those restrictions I cited are just as invalid as the Clinic Entrance Act.
It was determined long ago that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. However, The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act prohibits free speech which is not likely to cause violence or major civic unrest. Unless of course, a soldier who is attending military funeral decides to go stomp the a$$ of a Phelps or a woman walking into an abortion clinic sprays mace in the face of a protester who is blocking her passage into an abortion clinic.
My argument is that some locations and activities rquire limits on speech in order to protect the rights of others, and some don't. So, a limit could be perfectly appropriate and consistent with freedom in one place and ludicrous opppression in another.
Okay, but who will determine where a protest can take place?
You may want to ban protests at a military funeral while leftists would like to ban protests at abortion clinics. Does everyone is society get to state where they would like protests to be banned or will Mr. Silverbeck decide that for all of us?
I am not cheering for Phelps but rather see his case as a vehicle to overturn The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act.
And under no circumstances will I support a Court ruling that in one sentence cites the "Right to Privacy" (Roe v. Wade) and the right of a women to walk into an abortion clinic an kill her baby.
Now, here it is again a sentence from the ruling you support.
Individuals mourning the loss of a loved one share a privacy rightsimilar to individuals in their homes or individuals entering a medical facility.
Translation:
Privacy Right = Roe v. Wade
individuals entering a medical facility = Women walking into an abortion clinic to kill their baby.
No, but I would like you to answer the following simple question: Do you believe that the right of free speech is absolute? Because this...
It was determined long ago that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
...would seem to indicate that you don't.
However, The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act prohibits free speech which is not likely to cause violence or major civic unrest.
The vast majority of harassment cases don't lead to violence or a riot but we don't allow harassment. My point is that the Phelps Pharm (a hog farm, BTW) is not engaging in protest, but harassment. You have offered nothing to refute that point.
For example, I doubt very much you or I would oppose the Clinic Entrances Act if it had only outlawed running up to women and yelling "BABYKILLER" in their ear, or throwing fake blood on them, because neither of those things is protected speech, but (at best) harassment.
Okay, but who will determine where a protest can take place?
We will determine these things through the process of our representative republic, which is the way we determined that you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, and what constitutes libel, slander and harassment...you know, the exact same process you're counting on to overturn the Clinic Entrances Act.
BTW, you spelled my name wrong.
I am not cheering for Phelps but rather see his case as a vehicle to overturn The Freedom of Access to (Abortion) Clinic Entrances Act.
Some time before you brought up the Clinic Entrances Act you were saying that the Phelps Pharm's speech was protected because the right to free speech is absolute. Again, do you believe that or not?
Now, here it is again a sentence from the ruling you support.
I've clearly stated I support the outcome (The Phelps Pharm must find another place to defecate on) but not the reasoning. For you to imply otherwise is not honest.
I’m just shaking my head at all this.
I become more convinced by the day that some of these whuckphits need to be smacked upside the head with a two-by-four, just as one would deal with a recalitrant mule.
At least the mule eventually moves in the direction you’re urging, these clowns just keep running in circles.
I’m outta here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.