How do these fuckers not get killed?

[billvon 2,463]

>If it takes an act of congress to make him and his offspring stop, I
> don't have a problem with that.

Congress wouldn't do it; the Taliban would. They believe in legislating morality.

>I don't need to nor would I ever protest at a funeral. Its WRONG.

I agree 100%. It is wrong, and they shouldn't do it. They do have the _right_ to do it though. And as our military ordinarily fights and dies for that right, we should honor their sacrifice by respecting that right (even if we don't respect the people abusing that right.)

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

Although I completely disagree with any message Fred Phelps is trying to send, he is entitled to picket, protest and spread his shitty hate-filled message. Free speech works for everyone, even those ignorant a-holes you disagree with.

The ADL has some background information on Fred Phelps if you're bored at work. http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/default.asp

Some states are trying to pass legislations so it would be illegal to protest at funerals.

j

I have to sign a loyalty oath and undergo an inspection of my clothes to attend a "public event" where the current US president is to appear.

If I choose to participate in a protest on US soil, against the current US president, I am restricted to "free speech zones" far, far away from the venue where the event is being held. I can't just protest willy nilly. That would be unamerikan. We wouldn't want the president to actually see and hear any protestors, now would we? It might make him feel bad.

Setting up "free speech zones" for military funerals sounds like a really good plan. Two to three miles away is good enough for Shrub. It should be enough for the dead people's families.

[dorbie 0]

It's debatable whether they have a *right* to do this.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and victimizing a family at the funeral of a loved one. This is malicious, abhorrent antisocial behavior.

If I stood outside your house at midnight with a bullhorn and yelled about some pet peeve it wouldn't simply be freedom of speech. These assholes are doing something way worse than that.

[briguy 0]

For those of you upset by the funeral protesters, realize you aregetting your buttons pushed. You are playing into the Phelps church hands.

They WANT media attention.
They WANT to sue someone for hitting them.
They WANT to push your buttons.


Deny them these opportunities and they will fade away.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[billvon 2,463]

>It's debatable whether they have a *right* to do this.

Not really. If they are not breaking any laws (trespass etc) they have a right to peacefully assemble and say whatever they want.

Imagine the opposite. Imagine a bunch of people at Osama Bin Laden's funeral somewhere in the US, holding up American flags and singing "God Bless America." Should they be arrested because someone in Bin Laden's family is upset? If the answer is no, then you have your answer.

Remember, the true test of your belief in any of our rights is when someone you violently disagree with uses those rights.

>If I stood outside your house at midnight with a bullhorn and
>yelled about some pet peeve it wouldn't simply be freedom of
>speech.

Perhaps not, but your right to do that is protected. Now, if you are breaking a noise ordinance, I could call the cops, and they could make you turn down the volume, and arrest you if you refuse. But again, that's because breaking laws are illegal, not because you don't have a right to say whatever you want.

[dorbie 0]

In the mean time families who've given more than most ever will for their country have to suffer the pain of everyone doing nothing in silence.

Locking them up for public disorder and shedding some light on their vile bahavior and beliefs doesn't necessarily aid their cause, just as jailing fucktards doesn't have to net them good publicity.

[dorbie 0]

Your last argument cuts both ways, if they break a funeral ordinance or a public order ordainance or provoke public disorder then they can be arrested can't they, it has nothing to do with impeding someone's right to free speech.

[billvon 2,463]

>if they break a funeral ordinance or a public order ordainance
>or provoke public disorder then they can be arrested can't they . . .

Absolutely! They still have to obey the local ordinances like everyone else. And if I were a cop, I'd make my way over there that day with a copy of the ordinances and watch them very closely. But I would arrest them for violating section 1.7.c.(iii) of the code (or whatever) - not for spewing their nonsense.

[dorbie 0]

Then we were always in agreement on this.

[Richards 0]

Too many people are waving the "freedom of speech" flag on this one. It goes without saying that if soldiers were not willing give up their lives there would be no free speech. It is worse when one thinks beyond the mere death to the fact that many of these troops died horrible agonizing deaths. At least people could show the courtesy of allowing their final goodbye to be caried out with a degree of respect. There is no need to express ones freedom of speech in that manner at that time. It is needlessly cruel to the families who have often lost the most precious person in their lives to not be allowed peace in the moments they say goodbye. To see their loved ones sacrifices being mocked by these ingrate fucks. It's not as though they can have a second funeral when the protesters are gone...that was the last opportunity to say goodbye... and it is now gone. Legal constitutional semantics aside, common decency says that these asshole protesters should be dispbursed with machine gun fire, but that of course would be wrong because it would be a waste of perfectly good bullets.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Duckwater 0]

I dont think the US would stoop that low. We have proven that we respect the dead, even our enemies.

When the Glomar Explorer raised the Soviet K129 and found dead solders, we gave them a full ceremony and burial at sea. This was during the Cold War and without the Soviets knowledge.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/10/spy.ship.salvage/glomar.spy.funeral.mov

There should be a FEDERAL law prohibiting disturbing any funeral. Freedom of speech is one thing. Honor is another.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Legal constitutional semantics aside

No, I will not put them aside. If you consider yourself an American, neither should you.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Legal constitutional semantics aside

No, I will not put them aside. If you consider yourself an American, neither should you.

I am not saying to ignore it completely. I am merely saying we should differentiate between the letter of the constitution and the spirit in which it was intended. The constitution and laws were designed to support justice. When dirtbags like that can manipulate the letter of the constitution to pervert the very justice it was intended to support, the constitution fails. At what point do we stop allowing people who truly hate our society to use it's laws against us?

Richards

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Duckwater 0]

Quote

No, I will not put them aside. If you consider yourself an American, neither should you

I agree, the SPIRIT of free speech does not apply in this case.

Think of the person you love most....a child, spouse....now imagine that person was killed....now imagine I ame to the funeral and chanted how God hates them and they are in hell etc....

What would you do to me? Seriously?

Thinks about that...

[billvon 2,463]

>The constitution and laws were designed to support justice.

Exactly. Ever see that statue of Justice with a blindfold on, holding her scales? That's a graphical way of saying that she does not see that they are dirtbags. She does not see that they are saying something unpopular, or are disrespectful. All she does is weigh evidence. And if they break the law, they go to jail. If they don't, then they are entitled to every bit as much protection as anyone else.

And if someone from the wedding party beats the crap out of one of the protesters? They go to jail, the protester goes free, and they get all the free press they could ever want. They win, in other words.

>When dirtbags like that can manipulate the letter of the constitution to
> pervert the very justice it was intended to support, the constitution fails . . .
No, that is exactly the time it succeeds. You do not measure the success of our constitution when it protects the right of a popular hero to fly a US flag - you measure its success when it protects the right of a dirtbag to say something disgraceful. That's who it was MEANT to protect, because the dirtbag is the one who need protecting.

Keep in mind that pro-women's-rights protesters, civil rights activists, and anti-slavery forces were the 'dirtbags' of years past. Would you have really wanted them supressed, even if 90% of society hated their guts?

>At what point do we stop allowing people who truly hate our society to
>use it's laws against us?

When we all move to China. They don't let people do annoying things.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

At what point do we stop allowing people who truly hate our society to use it's laws against us?

Hmm... that would be at the point when "activist judges" start "legislating from the bench" I believe.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[briguy 0]

Quote

I agree, the SPIRIT of free speech does not apply in this case.

I think this is what free speech was intended to protect. Phelps' anti-government and anti-gay rhetoric, although unpleasant, is just as protected as a political catroon, a saturday night live skit, or a blog.

I don't think ANYONE in the forum agrees with Phelps' message or tactics, but some of us are defending his right to be an idiot because the Constitution says he can.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Richards 0]

Quote

I dont think the US would stoop that low. We have proven that we respect the dead, even our enemies.

When the Glomar Explorer raised the Soviet K129 and found dead solders, we gave them a full ceremony and burial at sea. This was during the Cold War and without the Soviets knowledge.

I think that this is a case of apples and oranges. Enemy soldiers simply human beings who were performing their duty (albeit under a leadership we despise) and therefore deserve to be treated with dignity and humanity, after they have been captured or killed. Spoiled people in a privileged society (we in the west are privileged) who are cruel and callous enough to protest at a funeral knowing how much pain they are inflicting on the family of the dead soldiers do not deserve the respect that we give enemy soldiers. They deserve the utmost contempt and absence of humanity.

Quote

There should be a FEDERAL law prohibiting disturbing any funeral. Freedom of speech is one thing. Honor is another.

I agree wholeheartedly. You do not need to inflict cruelty on the parents/spouse/children of a dead soldier to voice your opinion on a war. People who like doing stuff like that probably liked torturing small animals when they were kids. They are sick, cruel, and subhuman.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Duckwater 0]

And if anyone thinks we have true fredom of speech in this country, you are crazy.

My company has a code of ethics that applies whether I am at work or not.

If some racist worked for my company and went out and attended some klan rally or spewed the N word, he would be fired. My company can fire him, even though he is constitutionally protected to say it. Is that a violation of his civil rights?

I wonder if the ACLU would come to defend him and get his job back.

[jlmiracle 7]

***If it takes an act of congress to make him and his offspring stop, I
> don't have a problem with that.

Congress wouldn't do it; the Taliban would. They believe in legislating morality.

>I don't need to nor would I ever protest at a funeral. Its WRONG.

I agree 100%. It is wrong, and they shouldn't do it. They do have the _right_ to do it though. And as our military ordinarily fights and dies for that right, we should honor their sacrifice by respecting that right (even if we don't respect the people abusing that right.) ***

Its wrong Bill. So you are the type that would go do something, even though it just plane WRONG, because you can. That's a sad way to go through life.

j


j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[opurt 0]

Heckling dead soldiers and their families at the soldiers' funerals.

I wonder if Fighting Words laws could apply.

I support free speech, but there's an appropriate time and place for various speech. For example, it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

[Richards 0]

Quote

>The constitution and laws were designed to support justice.

Exactly. Ever see that statue of Justice with a blindfold on, holding her scales? That's a graphical way of saying that she does not see that they are dirtbags. She does not see that they are saying something unpopular, or are disrespectful. All she does is weigh evidence. And if they break the law, they go to jail. If they don't, then they are entitled to every bit as much protection as anyone else.

And if someone from the wedding party beats the crap out of one of the protesters? They go to jail, the protester goes free, and they get all the free press they could ever want. They win, in other words.

>When dirtbags like that can manipulate the letter of the constitution to
> pervert the very justice it was intended to support, the constitution fails . . .
No, that is exactly the time it succeeds. You do not measure the success of our constitution when it protects the right of a popular hero to fly a US flag - you measure its success when it protects the right of a dirtbag to say something disgraceful. That's who it was MEANT to protect, because the dirtbag is the one who need protecting.

Keep in mind that pro-women's-rights protesters, civil rights activists, and anti-slavery forces were the 'dirtbags' of years past. Would you have really wanted them supressed, even if 90% of society hated their guts?

>At what point do we stop allowing people who truly hate our society to
>use it's laws against us?

When we all move to China. They don't let people do annoying things.

I think you have missed my point. I completely agree with freedom of speech even when it does allow someone to say something I despise, as I realize I may need to rely on that freedom someday myself.

My problem is with the fact that these protesters deliberately picked the time and location of there protest to coincide with the funerals, and their message was designed to deliberately inflict the most pain on families who are already shattered by greif. They are kicking someone when they are down. There is a saying that says "The freedom to swing your arm stops just short of your neighbors nose". What that means is that while we have rights we also have responsibility to respect the rights of others and in this case the protestors are not respecting the rights of the soldiers families to be spared needless pain. Sometimes the rights overlap and lady justice has to make a command decision in the interest of human decency.

It would be like me walking into a childrens hospital and going into the ward for terminally ill children and chanting "You will all die slow terrible deaths" and saying I have a constitutional right to do that.

There is no need for these protestors to deliberately time their protests and message to specifically inflict cruelty on soldiers families, and therefor the constitution could be applied in a common sense manner to show compassion for people who are hurting terribly due to the loss of a loved one. If that means that these protesters have to exercise some tact (and compassion) while exercising their rights then so be it.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[billvon 2,463]

>Its wrong Bill. So you are the type that would go do something,
>even though it just plane WRONG, because you can. That's a sad
>way to go through life.

Did you mean to answer someone else? Or some other thread? I said it's wrong.

[Duckwater 0]

The contitution grants us broad, undefined freedoms.

It is up to the legislature to define them.

Does the right to bear arms mean I can have land mines and a bazooka?

Does the right to freedom of speech mean I can joke that I have a bomb at the airport?

Does the right to peaceful assembley mean I can do it on the 50 yard line durning an NFL game?

Unfortunately, we have to legislate dignity and honor.

I can see even burning a US flag at an organized, peaceful protest. I dont like it and would never do it but....

Im even for these assholes protesting the soldiers, just not at the funerals.

[Richards 0]

Im even for these assholes protesting the soldiers, just not at the funerals.