Posted on 10/04/2010 6:38:51 AM PDT by shortstop
No, you don’t have the right to protest at a funeral.
I know the First Amendment, I love the First Amendment, but bullhorns and picket signs at a cemetery or mortuary are not the First Amendment.
That’s what I hope the Supreme Court decides. As it commences its new term today, I hope that foolishness is not done in the name of freedom. I hope that the justices will remember that your freedom to swing your fists stops at the tip of my nose, and that one person’s liberty must not be empowered to disturb another person’s peace.
The case at hand involves those loathsome people who periodically protest at the funerals of GIs killed in battle. As these noble men and women are laid to rest, with their families and friends grieving, hateful people outside shout and wave signs declaring that “God hates fags” and that he kills Americans in battle as a punishment for our national sins.
Now, I’m all about freedom.
And people are free to believe that “God hates fags.” They are also free to communicate and proselytize that belief. They may say it, they may write it, they may broadcast it over the airwaves or on the Internet. They can print it up in pamphlets or books, buy advertisements to communicate it, even tattoo it across their foreheads.
But their right to free speech does not authorize them to commit harassment against other people or to disturb the peace.
Our legal system has long and appropriately held that there are limits on free speech and protest – the First Amendment itself contains such a limitation within it. One of the five – or six, depending on whether you count the religion clauses as one or two – rights of the First Amendment is the right of the people “peaceably to assemble.”
“Peaceably” does not just refer to an absence of violence. In a legal and social sense, “peace” is a state of civil normalcy. The legal offense “disturbing the peace” doesn’t typically refer to violence, it refers to noise.
And these protesters make noise.
A specific type of noise. A noise meant to offend and disturb people engaged in an intensely personal, emotional and important cultural ritual. It is not just an act of speech, it is an act of harassment.
And harassment is against the law in most jurisdictions.
When people protest a funeral, they are not communicating to the larger society exclusively, they are also communicating to the bereaved family personally. And that is not protected speech. Society has long held that protecting the rights of the hearer is as important as protecting the rights of the speaker – and sometimes more so.
If someone walks up to you and begins speaking in a loud, angry and profane fashion, in most cases that person is breaking the law.
He is engaged in speech, yet it is not protected speech. The First Amendment does not go so far as to say his right to talk trumps your right to be left alone.
Our law has long held that certain places and practices of your life are entitled to extra protection.
People can’t peep in your windows, for example. And disturbing a religious service usually carries a legal penalty. We have special laws that protect children and the places children go – like schools and playgrounds.
If society can give special protections to special events – and our laws do – then protecting funerals, corteges, cemeteries and burials is completely appropriate.
This is not a slippery slope. This is not some outpost of liberty. This is an act of anti-social evil done under the ruse of freedom. This does not exercise the Constitution, it bastardizes the Constitution. It makes light to our liberties by twisting our national charter to an illogical and damaging extreme.
I hope Supreme Court sees it that way.
I hope the Supreme Court is not confused.
I hope that common sense will prevail.
It is unfortunate that these pigs are so disrespectful of their fellow citizens that they would seek to politicize and disrupt a funeral. It is sad that they are so ungrateful to our servicemen that they would rejoice in their death. It is incomprehensible that they so misunderstand Christianity and common decency.
It is disgusting that they would seek to wrap their evil in the Constitution.
Because this isn’t about freedom. It is about harassment and disturbing the peace – both of which are illegal. Yes, the Constitution protects speech and assembly, but it is also pledged to “domestic tranquility.”
And shouting into bullhorns outside a funeral is not domestic tranquility.
I hope the Supreme Court remembers that.
A little Darwinism now and then can be a good thing.
Eggsactly!
It goes both ways. I think the protesters are disgusting people but there is no law against being disgusting.
I think you missed shortstop’s point. And I agree with shortstop. As long as the relatives of the dead soldier are permitted to react justly to the “protesters”, then I’m all in favor of the protesters “Darwinian rights” to have themselves removed from the gene pool.
Harassing someone at the funeral of their loved one should definitely fall under “not allowed.” If someone ever just snaps and slaughters the whole lot of them, I hope I’m on the jury. I want to help design the medal they should get.
My .02: I don’t trust the govt OR the people of the 21st c to make these fine-tuned, hyper-nuanced calls about 1A, hate speech, breaches of the peace, protester rights, common decency, and any goulash of those ingredients.
We have enough laws. We had enough long ago. There would be no winners here if the courts decided, no matter what the courts decided.
1A would certainly suffer, no matter which way it went. Either the court would uphold 1A here and make even more people fall out of love with 1A, or it would not be upheld and then we have one more exception to 1A which is already looking like swiss cheese along with the rest of the Constitution.
Recommended solution: These things should be resolved privately, that is to say out of court. Take it outside, as they used to say. Have a quiet discussion with the “protesters” or if need be, beat the living crap out of them.
I am sorry if that violates the rule here. I do highly respect the rules of this forum. Begging your indulgence, for my recommendation has a long and honorable tradition in this country.
I don’t see anything hyper-nuanced about “No protesting at funerals, of anybody, EVER.” I do not care if they are burying Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro, a United States Marine, Zsa Zsa Gabor, or Aidi Amin - funerals are no place for this kind of crap, period, end of story.
I wouldn’t be so quick to give up First Amendment rights, even for vile people like these Phelpsites. I think this would be a good case for bubble zones — if they’re going to have them for abortuaries, they should have them for funerals.
The nuance enters in when they start discussing the “balance” between 1A and harassment, free speech vs. civility, etc.
That was my point, however. I don’t see it either, and it doesn’t belong in court, where they will nuance it to death to the detriment of all.
I disagree.
I think this particular form of disgustingness is a breach of the peace AND an incitement to riot, and if men were not so pussified, Phelps would have had the sh*t beaten out of him long ago.
yep...
when they created restrictions against protessting at abortion clinics, they created the loophole that would allow them to suppress these types of protests.
although I strongly disagrree with the protests, an infringement against one is an infringement against all.
I propose a counter-protest, using a device similar to the electronics in the new Lexus. Its microphones pull in sounds made by the car, invert them electronically, and spit them back out thru the speakers. Results: No net car/road sounds. In the case of the protesters, add an amplification circuit before the output port. Result: If they stay silent, there is no problem. If they mouth off, the noise bounces back, even louder than they gave out. Highly directional speakers could keep the funeral itself very nice and respectful.
Sonic self-defense. How could they complain?
I agree the inbred members of “Westboro Baptist Church” are vile, ugly and disgusting. I wouldn't blame someone for losing their composure and beating the crap out of them under the circumstances. But we must be careful not to allow government to impose yet another restriction against freedom of speech. These cretins should be free to spout their invective from the confines of their “church” or any other place they have the legal right to assemble and protest.
Where they may be vulnerable is due to Funerals being accorded special recognition in most States. It is unlawful in Ohio to interfere with a funeral procession, for example.
I'm sure they are already violating numerous statutes for any number of things. Blocking the sidewalk, disturbing the peace, littering.
I hate these futher muckers but, in fact, their free speech is protected.
They are wrong, morally but they are expressing their lame view under freedom of speech.
That is the very definition of "disturbing the peace".
And, although all citizens have the right to be left in peace at all times, they have a special right not to be provoked when their natural and laudable emotions make the breach MORE likely.
A proper understanding of "breach of peace" law would end Phelps' protests, without a doubt.
On-One.
Server more coffee please. #%^$
This is a tough one, I usually support the first even for loons like this (I exempt islam always). However, these guys are pretty much doing ‘fighting words’ as well, so if they get their asses kicked or killed, what can you do?
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.