New Law Bans Demonstrations at Funerals

Amendment I of the old bill of rights

"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." ​

Amendment I of the revised bill of rights

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech unless it is done within 150 feet of a military funeral, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

Fred Phelps is offensive, however people who are ignorant of or do not abide by the constitution are far more offensive.

 

Once I found a bikers funeral escort site that showed what
when on at the mililtary funeral. There were about 200 at the funeral
to honor the military person being buried.
There were about 200 bikers protecthing the right of the
freedom of speech of those at the funderal. There were 50 cops
protecting the ten Phelps-ites from the 200 bikers.

 

No one has infringed on free speech here. This isue isnt about free speech. It is about protests that interfere with a funeral. Phelps can say what ever they want about the war and soldiers. But they cannot protest at their funeral and interfere with the funeral. The protest is unlawful not free speech.

 

The article in the OP states this:

"The new amendment prohibits protestors from demonstrating within 150 feet of a funeral and within an hour of the memorial service. It provides a year in jail and/or an undetermined fine for violators." ​

According to the article, the amendment prohibits demonstrations, it does not say anything about "interfering" nor have I read a single instance where the Westboro crew has interfered with the funeral procession or the activities contained therein. Instead I read things like this...

"As dozens of mourners streamed solemnly into church to bury Cpl. David A. Bass, a fresh-faced 20-year-old marine who was killed in Iraq on April 2, a small clutch of protesters stood across the street on Tuesday, celebrating his violent death." (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html?ex=1302926400&en=fa00fcbce509da8b&ei=5088&)​

Standing across the street from a church and protesting with signs and voice is not interfering with a funeral. It is the exercise of free speech which is something that congress can make no laws to abridge the freedom of.

The protests were lawful prior to the amendment, the protests remain lawful according to the constitution, and they are only unlawful according to this new amendment to U.S. Law (which is not law if it is contrary to the Constitution).

 

Nobody has challenged a similiar Oklahoma law.

I still see the picture of 50 police protecting 10 protesters
from 200 Christian bikers.

 

The intent of the funeral is to mourn the loss of a loved one. Protesters of the war and of soldiers yelling and holding up inflammatories within view and ear shot most certainly interferes with this. Again protests are limited in a variety of settings and this just another one. Free speech and protests are not the same thing. Limiting protests in no way limits free speech.

 

How can you say that when the individuals free speech have been forbidden within certain times and within a certain distance of the event they have come to protest?

What if it turns into 300, 600, 1200 feet? If one is allowed to be thoroughly disagreeable, disrespectful and ill mannered as they please but they can only do it in their house is their free speech protected? What if the government was to create "free speech zones"? Perhaps set up fences where people can only protest behind those fences? What if a Christian decided to protest a Harry Potter movie and the gov't said that's alright, just don't do it anywhere near the theater? How about a Christian who wants to protest an abortion clinic and the gov't says you can, just don't do it anywhere near the clinic? How is it that a wretched artist can place a crucifix in a bottle of urine and his freedom of speech is protected but when someone is "disrespectful and ill mannered" then new laws abridging their freedom of speech are created? When does it become contrary to a constitution that says congress shall make NO laws abridging the freedom of speech?

 

How far is the nearest US border from Kansas...
That is where Phelps should be put...
If he doesn't love the US, he should leave it!!

I seriously can't believe I am reading what I am reading.
How can anyone defend Phelps?

For those that think we have a true freedom of speech, yell "Fire" in a public place...
or call up the president and threaten his life.

Common sense prevails.
And common biblical sense says protect the mourning from idiotic protests.

 

Are you nationalistic or patriotic? What is the United States if it isn't her founding documents? If you do not love the Constitution then perhaps it is not Phelps that should be seeking the nearest US border?

Who is defending Phelps, Tiny? I am not defending Phelps but rather the Constitution of the United States of America. If congress drafts laws to abridge the freedom of speech for Mr. Phelps, then surely they can do the same against you and I when we say or protest in a way that is offensive to some. Regardless, of how wack his soteriology and protest tactics are, the issue here is a constitutional one, not an emotional one. Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you are saying but I will defend your right to say it to the death"?

Freedom of speech is free, not restrained, your examples of yelling "fire" or threatening the life of another are not comparable to a group of Calvinists protesting against sodomites and an immoral war.

 

First off Phelps and co. are not protesting against the war because they think it is immoral. They are saying that the US deserves casualtys in war because we allow homosexuals to live here.

Second inciting a riot is againt the law and is very comparable to what Phelps and co. are doing. Inciting a riot is against the law because.... well it might incite a riot. Free speach is restricted in that case because of the possable harm. People are becoming fed up with Phelps and co. His actions are going to cause violence.

 

Because in this case what folks like phelps does is to infringe on what the mourners are doing. He is interfering with the funeral. When protesters scream above the one speaking in the house of congress they are taken outside. When protesters speak above the speaker at any event they have legally become unpeaceable and are removed. The very dynamics of a funeral requires peace in time of mourning. And in this particular case the need for mourning out weighs the need for protest. Protests at funerals infringes on the rights of the mourners. Freedom of speech has never been upheld by any court to say "anywhere anytime". They are welcome to protest the war in many other places and times. The speech isnt illegal, but the time and place is.

We cannot stand outside at midnight and protest the war or anything else in an area where it will disturb peoples sleep. Because it infringes on the rights of others and is not peaceable. Speech and protest must always be peacable, that is the law.

 

I have the right to bury my son, should he die in Iraq, with
the assistance of his friends/comrades/fellow soldiers.
If this right (and yes, it is a freedom of speach right) is NOT granted
to me I WILL TAKE IT.

Gross people with unpopular opinions have the right to
hire the assembly hall (I know the larger church than mine
in town will NOT rent their space to renagade pseudo-baptists)
a few hours after I use it; or hire a different assembly hall.

My state has laws that allow me my freedom of speach in my
church that I helped pay for (about 1% it comes out) without
being overrun by other folks who didn't pay for the church.

 

To incite is to move the mind to action by persuasion (Source: Webster's 1828). What evidence do you have to suggest that they incite riots? Are they riots like this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFVjg79_iM? Does this mean that if I take a message to the streets that is unpopular and people throw rocks at me, then I am responsible for inciting a riot? Is Westboro Baptist Church accountable for the violent tendencies of others as they respond to an unpopular message? Is it your belief that they are trying to persuade people, who disagree with their view, to throw rocks at them?

**Phelps disclaimer** Again, I am not defending Fred Phelps, I will not walk together with him and were he before me I would rebuke him. His tactics are heinous and I am opposed to many of his beliefs and deeds. However, Americans should have a right to speak out in the public square. If an American said that hanging new born puppies by their toe nails is an effective stress releaser, as offensive as that might sound, in America, they should have the right to say it and congress should pass no laws abridging their right.

 

I did not say they were inciting a riot, I said the law was similar, of the same type.

Read 2Timothys post a couple postes up.

He says what I was trying to say. It is an excelent post. He makes some great points. Especally this one.

I will add this. If I walk into a public library and start yelling and screaming, The police will show up in short order to remove me or arrest me. Does that infringe on my free speach?

 

No one has stifled them. The minute their "free speech" infringes on the rights on others, it has become burdensome. Kudos to Pres.

 

The funerals have proceeded without interruption and without interference. By your example, you are suggesting that Westboro has been within the confines of the funeral proceedings? I have only seen them on sidewalks in public areas.

Right, so now when someone wants to protest alongside the parade route of a president, that is not the proper time and place according to the Secret Service. If folks want to protest outside of a Republican or Democratic convention center then they say the proper place is behind fences far away from the action and cameras. This is many things, but it is not freedom and it is not freedom of speech. Being allowed to verbalize into the water of a bathtub does not mean you have freedom of speech. Your argument demonstrates that freedom of speech of an individual is only free as long as it fits the time and place criteria of others. If it is private property that is one thing, but the sidewalks outside of a federally owned property is not private.

Local noise ordinances in residential areas are not acts of congress restricting free speech.

 

and then you said that "His [Phelps] actions are going to cause violence."

Has congress drafted a law that abridges your right to protest in a public library?

 

You continue to ignore my statements about the nature of the funeral. Which is to mourn peacably. Protests outside on the side walk but within the close proximaty is a disturbance and an infringement on the right of the mourners to do so peacably. The law signed by our President does not go far enough.

You cannot stand in the middle of the street which is subsidized by taxpayers and administered through our governemnt in the midnight hour and protest in a way that effects the sleep of the people in a neighborhood in a hegative way. It is illegal.

You cannot stand outside on the street in front of the home of a congresman, Senator, or any government official at the midnight hour and protest in a way that interferes with their peacable sleep. You will be arrested if you will not stop.

So there is presidence that says there are appropriate times and places to protest. People cannot mourn in peace with protesters spueing hatred about their deceased loved one. Doing so interferes with their peacable mourning. Therefore the protests are an infringement on the peacable rights of others.

Your fear that this will be applied in the setting of a passing motorcade of an elected official is not relevent to the right of the mourners to do so without interference which is exactly what Phelps and his ilk want to do adn have accomplished even from the sidewalk.