New Law Bans Demonstrations at Funerals

Thinking people recognize that the examples you cited are not comparable to individuals protesting on a public sidewalk in front of tax payer owned property.

In a bygone era people would not throw out the Constitution just because some guy in Kansas is being rude.

 

Westboro Baptist has not interferred with the ability of these mourners to mourn their loss. They have spoken loudly and used signs in protest. Where is the right to mourn the loss of a loved one absent of noise or signs found in the Constitution?

 

You have just offended me by bringing yet another red herring to this argument. I will see you in court .

 

No sir. It's called freedom of speech and this right should have extended only to the oral and written word and never to imagery. The pornography that is in television, movies, and the internet should be outlawed and prosecuted with great zeal for it is a public health matter, a destroyer of families and it is a perversion of the Constitution to say that it protects such heinousness.

 

Hum.... FoxNews would be proud of you... At least you're using their tag line (not that they follow it :laugh


Jamie

 

And?


See post here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=921482&postcount=34


Jamie

 

Sure they are. And thinking people know that. This is an argument from two principles: 1) common sense; 2) historical use of the first amendment. The first reason should be all we need. The second reason will be sufficient. On what possible grounds can you defend something such as Phelps does?

Nobody is throwing out the Constitution. This has traditionally been found well with in the constitution. Noise ordinances exist in nearly every city, county, and state that prohibit loud expressions on tax payer property. So to put it simply, you are on the wrong side of this. You are on the wrong side morally, sensibly, and constitutionally.

 

Free speech does not mean you can harass people or assault them with invectives. Free speech does not mean anything goes - there are limits even on free speech and part of what happens in the U.S. is that we constantly challenge, test, and find these limits.

 

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.

Westboro has superceded the rights of others to peaceably assemble when they protest. The fact that their very presence and abhorrant behaviour has often incited rioteous behaviour, that which they they are not lawfully entitled to do.

 

Yep^

Yep^

I'll talk in platitudes - the right to free speech is not absolute, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of Fred Phelp's right to scream at families attending funerals when they wrote the First Amendment.

The old Gag Order from the 1990's is a better parallel. What's also interesting is many of these same people worried about the Constitution being "trampled on" will then accept any and all restrictions on, say, the Second Amendment.

/[platitude]

 

Moving this to Politics since it is already on page 5.

Lady Eagle

 

Again I say, I am not defending what Phelps is doing or saying. This law, nor the laws that will follow it, based on its precedence, will not apply only to Fred Phelps and it won't apply only to funerals. Phelps has some very real problems but exercising his 1st amendment rights is not one of them.

What part of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" are you having a challenge with? Are you saying that it wasn't congress that made a law or that this law does not abridge freedom of speech or that no doesn't really mean no or that freedom of speech is a right that is only granted to citizens within government approved locations and government approved times?

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. - 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution​

 

He is not being prevented from exercising his rights. He is welcome to say what he wants.

No part of it.

It doesn't abridge his freedom of speech.

This is already a well-established principle of the first amendment, as we known from "fire in a crowded theater" to demonstration in tax payer owned Senate and House chambers, to demonstrations in courtrooms (also owned by taxpayers), to noise ordinances, etc. The principle behind this law, as I understand this law, has clearly been upheld as constitutional.

Remember, these people are free to say what they want.

 

Sure. As long as they do it when and where the gov't says so.

 

In Texas, we have always maintained a code to protect those that are not in a condition to protect themselves - like people grieving the loss of a loved one . . .

 

So should these people be able to sit on the floor of Congress and demonstrate there? If not, why not?

 

What have they done to incite riots?

 

I see that there is a selective reading disorder that is being passed around on this thread.

 

No they shouldn't. The people elect representatives to enter congress, and the congress has been granted authority by the constitution to dictate the appropriate decorum that goes on within those walls. To the best of my knowledge no one from Westboro is in congress. As a reminder, the floor of congress is not a public sidewalk.