New Law Bans Demonstrations at Funerals

That is why it is similar.

Why does it have to be congress?

 

This has already happened and is being done. Go Google this when Bush was running for his second term, and the protestors where locked behind a fence and far far away from the president. It was done under National Security, but we all know the real reason it was done.

Nothing has changed, in so much as your example is concerned. They have done that, and will always do that.

Jamie

 

As much as I despise what Phelps does, and as much as I think it's rotten to go to funerals and project your hateful speech into a group of grieving people- I must admit that I agree with what Rufus_1611 said (but with reservations). The Constitution is the final law of this land and should not conflict with any other (even if it only affects a minority).

I think there is a good argument how Phelps is using his free speech improperly, though. He is using his freedom of speech to infringe on others freedom of speech / freedom of religion (ceremony of the mourners), purposely projecting his free speech from public property to private property with the intent to interfere. As far as I know, you cannot infringe on another persons freedoms like that. But I'm not sure how that goes.

 

The state of Indiana recently passed a law banning protests at military funerals because of Fred Phelps and his followers.

 

Thanks Jamie. I was aware and I pray that now you have informed our comrades reading this thread, that perhaps they will be appalled at how our constitution continues to be eroded in the name of national security or funeral attendee offense or warrior idolatry or whatever it is that causes people to think that American citizens should have their freedom of speech abridged by acts of congress.

 

In soviet Russia, funeral protests you!

 

What we are talking about is the bill called "The Respect for Funerals of Fallen Heroes Act" that was created by a congressman named Richard Durbin and signed into office by the President of the United States. I don't know of a congressional bill that disallows protests at a library. If you know of one then your argument may have merit, otherwise it may just be a red herring. Nevertheless, I'll run with it...if people can go to libraries and view porn and their free "speech" is protected then it seems like someone would have the same protection if they were at the library with picket signs saying God hates porn and telling the porn viewers to repent. However, in this day, it would not surprise me if the porn viewer is protected and the one with an ideological perspective and something to say had to stay 150 feet away, could only protest during hours when the library wasn't open and was only allowed to protest real quiet like.

 

And also by the DNC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incidents_and_court_proceedings

 

Thats right! Else, those fiends would be infringing on those citizens right to read pornography! This is still America, isn't it? A man ought to be able to relax with the reading material of his choice. They should do the same thing for those abortion protesters. Make them stand down the street behind a wooden fence and be real quiet because murdering babies takes a steady hand and we wouldn't want to distract the doctors, now would we?

We have no constitutional guarantee that people exercising their freedoms will not offend/annoy/anger us.

 

What I am saying is why do you care if your free speech is infringed on by congress of the US, or a city councle. The result is the same.

See you are wrong, I can view porn without disturbing anybody else ( as long as the monitor is not in public view, been along time since I went to the library). You can not stand on a table with a picket sign and yell GOD HATES PORN without causing a disturbance.

As I explained above. Your morral beliefs, that porn is wrong, do not give you legal rights.

 

I would have to disagree. Personally, I would not want to look across the street and see these people using the funeral as a stage or backdrop for their personal protest.

I applaud any amendment that upholds the decent and right, which I believe this one does.

 

This is a perfectly fine law, necessitated only by the boorish behavior of stupid people, who are defended by those who gives us cause to wonder about their own sense of common decency.

The right to free speech has never been completely unfettered. You do not have the right to stand up in Congress and speak concerning anything. And the first amendment is fine. You do not have the right to stand up in the Supreme Court and say anything. And the first amendment is fine. You do not have the right to stand under a person's bedroom window all night long and shout obscenities (or shout anything else for that matter). And the first amendment is fine.

Thinking people recognize this and are not troubled by it. Those who are troubled by it show a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of speech designed to be protected, as well as a fundamental lack of moral decency and common sense.

The fact that some defend it is unconscionable.

These people are more than welcome to exercise their free speech. But as in many cases in our country, the location in which they can do so is rightfully limited. It is unfortunate that moral sensibility has fallen to such a state that we even need to have laws about this sort of thing. In bygone eras, in a time of civil decency, such actions as Phelps and others would have been considered unthinkable, even by those who shared his views.

 

The peaceful mourning of a lost loved one has a higher importance than just being offended. Much in the same way one cannot interfere with the sleep of another. Being offended isnt the issue. It is about the infriongement on the rights of those folks to mourn their loss. Which certainly has more weight than any protest.

 

I never said that it wasn't used by any and all politicans. I only stated it the way I did because in the OP Rufus_1611 said "the parade route of a president"


Jamie
Is it always about Right vers Left?

 

Here you go, was this womans free speach violated.

http://www.9and10news.com/category/story/?id=110968

 

Just trying to keep this thread "FAIR AND BALLANCED"

 

Alright, I agree but it is not a comparative example and is a different argument.

The monitors in our local library are in public view. Public disturbances are not contrary to the Constitution. What this nation needs is a few public disturbances to wake it out of its coma.

I have a Constitutional legal right to freely express my views in a public setting without restriction and irregardless of morality.

 

If your monitors are in a public place then porn should be restricted because public display of porn causes a visual disturbance.

BUT I assume that since you are defending the right of free speach and the right to cause a disturbance. You would defent the right to view porn in a public place where the porn can be viewed by the public. After all you did say.

Good for the goose and the gander I supose. Do you defend the right to look at porn on a public monitor?

 

Personally, neither would I. God will deal with Mr. Phelps, as it takes a special kind of person to protest at a funeral.

It's cliche` but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This legislation establishes precedent that it is alright to infringe on people's free speech when that speech offends others. Today it is funeral attendees that are offended, tomorrow it may be a gay pride sodomite who doesn't want his celebration to be ruined by those mean Christians, or a Harry Potter viewer who has his or her experience hindered by protesters outside the theater or the woman who just wants to get an abortion in peace etc., etc.