Posted on 08/02/2012 3:56:40 PM PDT by EveningStar
The Westboro Baptist Church always seems to show up where controversial situations may have occurred such as funerals, memorials, and vigils, but soon they will at least see limitations put on their protests for military funerals. As of July 31, 2012, the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 was passed by the House after already being passed by the Senate and is heading for President Barack Obama to sign.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The media would have us believe that his signature is required.
/johnny
Oh I think there is a reasonable line between setting boundaries on the 1st Amendment and limiting it. Sticking it to mourners at funerals, is certainly not what the founders had in mind. It’s a shame that the fire in a theater situation such as this even needed a law. It would have been better if local law enforcement just rounded them up at their last protest, and found that they couldn’t buy a juror that wouldn’t convict. Anywhere.
I'll not budge on this, as much as I loathe WBC. I didn't serve in two wars to see the 1st Amendment breached.
Next, will be saying things like the Bible doesn't approve of homosexuality. It's a slippery slope.
/johnny
the WBC and the left have won this fight with the passage of this new law. It will gradually be expanded to include other forms of protest that some do not like.
Speech should not be restricted. However there does need to be stern limit as in NIL to the civil damages awarded and no filed criminal charges filed on someone acting under extreme emotional duress. Meaning specifically where that someone punches someone who protest their deceased family members PRIVATE funeral service even in a V.A. Cemetery. If the means to file civil suit or rather the monetary reward is taken away for this the badgering nonsense will stop.
I'll not budge on this, as much as I loathe WBC. I didn't serve in two wars to see the 1st Amendment breached.
Next, will be saying things like the Bible doesn't approve of homosexuality. It's a slippery slope.
I hold that the First Amendment is fine as it is, with no further amendments. But Westboro is not about legitimate “assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievance.” It is about harassment, pure and simple. The people they are harassing are vulnerable, not powerful, and have no ability to affect the policy they claim to object to. Their behavior would disgrace a snake.
/johnny
Are the Phelps family ghouls held to the same restrictions as pro-life activists? If not, we’ve got a serious violation of the equal protection clause.
/johnny
Being in a crowded, darkened theater is a special circumstance, in which people are remarkably vulnerable (as the “Dark Knight Rises” incident painfully illustrates). Thus, shouting “Fire!” in such a venue could cause deaths and injuries - and thus, it makes the classic example of speech which can damage and may be censored for the good of society. Without compromise of the ability of the people to hold reasoned public discussions of religion, politics (the two subjects mentioned explicitly in the First Amendment), or anything else.
Westboro makes its publicity splash by verbally assaulting people who are at their most vulnerable. They are picking a fight, and that should be understood in court as an assault.
Glad to see the restriction but the limits need to be increased........Say, 6 hours before and after the funeral, 1000 feet of the funeral versus the 300 feet stated.
If you are going to put in a law, put some teeth into it.
IMHO, it stems from the legal confusion of the concept 'public'. Its isn't anywhere you can go, it's places owned BY the public, and consequently, the government. On that property, their rights are inalienable.
Its why Westboro gets away with doing it at military funerals, because the property is owned by the government.
Private owned cemeteries would be another matter. They would be trespassing....and personally, I would have their heads on a stick for what they do.
just my 2 cents.
IMHO, it stems from the legal confusion of the concept 'public'. Its isn't anywhere you can go, it's places owned BY the public, and consequently, the government. On that property, their rights are inalienable.But Westboro is not about legitimate “assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievance.”
Its why Westboro gets away with doing it at military funerals, because the property is owned by the government.
There’s no question that my rights are greater on my own property than they are on government thorofares, and greater in public venues than they are on privately owned property. But I’m not legally in the clear if I pick a fight in public, just because I didn’t do it on your property. There are laws, legitimate laws, against stalking and harassment. It’d be hard for you to make the case that I was stalking you if you were on my property, tho . . .The point, surely, is that WBC is presuming to demand that people - people in their most vulnerable, least powerful state - listen to them. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak but not the right to be heard. If you want to be heard, you have to convince people to listen. Demanding to be listened to is arrogant, bullying, abusive behavior not protected by the First Amendment. Physical and acoustic space for a respectful funeral, on sad occasions, is understood by everyone as part of the pursuit of happiness, and as such it is on a par with the right to liberty. WBC knows that as well as you do. They rely on the credulity of people, even judges, to turn the right to speak into a “right” to be listened to.
I agree with you on this whole heartedly. It is a slippery slope we really don’t want to go down.
And to make this even more absurd, I have a gay friend who thinks this is a great idea. Really?
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.