How do these fuckers not get killed?

[Duckwater 0]

I agree..I should have said I support their RIGHT to protest soldiers....

If for some reason we ever become the fourth reicht and our soldiers are killing jews, we need to keep that right. (but not at their funerals)

[briguy 0]

Phelps' group protests as soldier's funerals because they KNOW it will enrage people and get them talking. The media covers it and Phelps' group gets an interview / soundbyte on the evening news.

They aren't protesting the war, they are protesting the "pro-fag government". Check out the ADL web link earlier in the thread for more details.

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

[Richards 0]

Quote

Phelps' group protests as soldier's funerals because they KNOW it will enrage people and get them talking. The media covers it and Phelps' group gets an interview / soundbyte on the evening news.

They aren't protesting the war, they are protesting the "pro-fag government". Check out the ADL web link earlier in the thread for more details.

Regardless of what they are protesting, these people are sick for doing that to the families of soldiers. I would love to get a good look at these bastards....through a rifle scope!

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]

>and their message was designed to deliberately inflict the most
>pain on families who are already shattered by greif.

Their message was designed to get them the most possible airtime. You yourself demonstrate how true this is - you've spent a good half hour now spreading their message. Heck, they admit that.

>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"

Exactly right. But if you are swinging and NOT hitting him in the nose, he has to put up with your absurd flailing about, even if it's annoying. You have the right to not be beat up; you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

>and in this case the protestors are not respecting the rights of the
> soldiers families to be spared needless pain.

Again, you do not have the right to not be offended, even if you are hurting and they are being assholes about it. Are they wrong? Absolutely. Should you convince them to stop? Definitely. I'd buy you a case of beer if you did. Should they go to jail if they do offend people? Absolutely not - that's what the First Amendment is all about.

>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.

If you are standing in a public area, and they are there too, then you have that right. (Of course, you'd be pretty despicable if you did that.) If you were in a private hospital when you said that, then you'd be arrested for trespassing - and rightfully so.

>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.

"Showing compassion" is something that should be done because someone is a good human being. You can not legislate good behavior, nor should you try. You pass laws against crimes, not against things that personally offend you. That's what the First Amendment is all about.

[Richards 0]

Quote

>and their message was designed to deliberately inflict the most
>pain on families who are already shattered by greif.

Their message was designed to get them the most possible airtime. You yourself demonstrate how true this is - you've spent a good half hour now spreading their message. Heck, they admit that.

>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"

Exactly right. But if you are swinging and NOT hitting him in the nose, he has to put up with your absurd flailing about, even if it's annoying. You have the right to not be beat up; you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

>and in this case the protestors are not respecting the rights of the
> soldiers families to be spared needless pain.

Again, you do not have the right to not be offended, even if you are hurting and they are being assholes about it. Are they wrong? Absolutely. Should you convince them to stop? Definitely. I'd buy you a case of beer if you did. Should they go to jail if they do offend people? Absolutely not - that's what the First Amendment is all about.

>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.

If you are standing in a public area, and they are there too, then you have that right. (Of course, you'd be pretty despicable if you did that.) If you were in a private hospital when you said that, then you'd be arrested for trespassing - and rightfully so.

>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.

"Showing compassion" is something that should be done because someone is a good human being. You can not legislate good behavior, nor should you try. You pass laws against crimes, not against things that personally offend you. That's what the First Amendment is all about.

I do not know what to say. I can see that your intention is commendable, but I cannot agree with your perspective, so with all due respect (and I mean it respectfully) we will have to agree to disagree.

Cheers,

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.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

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.

THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT POST!!!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

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.

Yup I agree, throw whatever appropriate charges they can at them now, but if there aren't any (I doubt there aren't for this kind of provocation) then we need some because these fucktards have no shame. No need to be cowed by the freedom of speech cannard, this is just disgusting behavior that doesn't merit protection under any guise.

We can also hope for a civil action from their victims.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Their message was designed to get them the most possible airtime. You yourself demonstrate how true this is - you've spent a good half hour now spreading their message. Heck, they admit that.

and this is why it is exactly within the spirit of the Constitution and the Founders that wanted free speech protected.

It does seem, however, like one could past muster with a law that required a minimum of distance from the funeral proceedings. The gains are obtained even if the protest is out of earshot of the grieved. Are these guys picketing 40 yards away, or at the entrance to the cemetery?

[billvon 2,463]

>It does seem, however, like one could past muster with a law that
> required a minimum of distance from the funeral proceedings. The
> gains are obtained even if the protest is out of earshot of the
> grieved. Are these guys picketing 40 yards away, or at the entrance
> to the cemetery?

Good point. In general I'm against corralling protesters into 'free speech' parking lots or something, but a law that prevented protesters from being within X feet of a funeral (provided X wasn't 100 miles or something) could help avoid these sort of problems.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Good point. In general I'm against corralling protesters into 'free speech' parking lots or something, but a law that prevented protesters from being within X feet of a funeral (provided X wasn't 100 miles or something) could help avoid these sort of problems.

A law? That's horrible!

Why not just hold these funerals on private property and evict gate crashers?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[livendive 8]

Quote

Why not just hold these funerals on private property and evict gate crashers?

Evict? I thought the consensus today was that trespassers should be shot.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

>It does seem, however, like one could past muster with a law that
> required a minimum of distance from the funeral proceedings. The
> gains are obtained even if the protest is out of earshot of the
> grieved. Are these guys picketing 40 yards away, or at the entrance
> to the cemetery?

Good point. In general I'm against corralling protesters into 'free speech' parking lots or something, but a law that prevented protesters from being within X feet of a funeral (provided X wasn't 100 miles or something) could help avoid these sort of problems.

Not to disrupt the topicality of this thread but this exact topic was covered here. it's even an active thread on the same page.

Fred Phelps and family (which is the majority of the 200 member Westboro Baptist Church) are insane. Their "protests" are so outrageous... I'm speechless.

I believe Iowa and a number of other states are in the process of writing a law very similar to what Billvon is proposing. I would like to see Mr. Phelps and friends commited to a psychiatric institution... or Camp X-ray. Doesn't Homeland Security have laws that protect us from terrorists?

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[billvon 2,463]

>Why not just hold these funerals on private property and evict gate crashers?

A good plan, as long as the cemetary is on private property. I don't know if national cemetaries are.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

A good plan, as long as the cemetary is on private property. I don't know if national cemetaries are.

Let's assume they're not. In that case anyone holding a funeral on private property gets a dignified funeral.

Anyone who goes to public property might get undignified protests.

Make your choice. Free will. It's a bitch.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Zenister 0]

what is really appalling is those like you who do not understand that Contitutional Guarantees apply to EVERYONE or they apply to NO ONE....

you might not like them at all.. but they MUST BE just as protected as everyone else, or the Oath and Ideals those soldiers died for means less than NOTHING...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I believe Iowa and a number of other states are in the process of writing a law very similar to what Billvon is proposing.

A law similar was enacted recently here in Missouri and it worked out real well last week. The christian nazi group ran by Phelps announced that they would protest at the funeral of a soilder in SW Mo.. They backed down when they were told that they will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest exent of the law. Every state needs to enact laws that provide dignity for the deceased and the mourners. Sad that it has to be this way. Some people have no respect.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[akarunway 1]

Quote

what is really appalling is those like you who do not understand that Contitutional Guarantees apply to EVERYONE or they apply to NO ONE....

you might not like them at all.. but they MUST BE just as protected as everyone else, or the Oath and Ideals those soldiers died for means less than NOTHING...

Best reply in the whole thread---------------------------------------------------------------

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Richards 0]

Quote

what is really appalling is those like you who do not understand that Contitutional Guarantees apply to EVERYONE or they apply to NO ONE....

you might not like them at all.. but they MUST BE just as protected as everyone else, or the Oath and Ideals those soldiers died for means less than NOTHING...

It is not an issue of who it applies to, so much as how it is interpreted and applied. The protesters do not need to deliberately hurt the families of soldiers. I am not suggesting that they cannot offer that opinion but human decency says that you do not torment someone who has just lost a son by holding up a placard saying that the son will burn in hell. I'm sure the letter of the constitution and the spirit in which it was intended often conflict with each other and that is why we do allow for constitutional ammmendments when the letter of the constitution is being perverted. I am not sure why you interpret that as suggesting that the constitution should be selective in who it applies to. I am merely pointing out the obvious fact that it was written by humans, and therefore is not perfection redefined, an we must be prepared to ensure that the constitution is used in the manner in which it was intended and not perverted to serve the needs of someone who intends harm.

Can you come up with a reason why the protesters need to aim these protests at the families? In theory when someone is on the ledge of a building contemplating suicide and the police psychologist is trying to talk him off the ledge, I do have the constitutional right to yell "Jump you pussy". Instead of playing bar-room lawyer, try to see that I am merely trying to curb behavior that is deliberately and needlessly harmfull. As I have stated before I realize that it is important for the constitution to protect someones right to say that which is in complete opposition to my values, and I would fight to protect that right, but these protesters are being incredibly cruel to the families of soldiers at their funerals. Can we not as a society stand up and say this is wrong, or are we automotans who merely quote the constitution as though it was the ten commandments every time someone is hurting someone else?

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.

[briguy 0]

Quote

Can you come up with a reason why the protesters need to aim these protests at the families?

it gets them media coverage.

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

[billvon 2,463]

>Can we not as a society stand up and say this is wrong . . .

Of course we can. It IS wrong. Heck, NAMBLA is wrong. The Westboro Baptist Church is wrong. Pat Robertson is wrong. Michael Jackson is wrong. Are you going to silence all those people? Or just the ones you disagree with?

>or are we automotans who merely quote the constitution as though
>it was the ten commandments every time someone is hurting
>someone else?

We are Americans who believe that the Constitution is central to our society and our government, and we protect it even when people who we disagree with are covered by its protections as well. As a smarter guy than us once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That's what you do if the you truly believe in the Constitution, and believe that it's not just a bunch of words to be reinterpreted as political whim dictates.

Again, there are plenty of places that do not heed any such document; those are good places to go if you wish to legislate against the speech you dislike. China is a good example.

[Duckwater 0]

Quote

We are Americans who believe that the Constitution is central to our society and our government, and we protect it even when people who we disagree with are covered by its protections as well.

I think our whole system is in need of a major overhaul, the constitution included.

How crazy is it to think that a document written 200 years ago can still be applicable today without major changes? A company would be out of business in short order if it was not constantly manipulating its business model to adapt to the current conditions.

I think the idea of a trial by a jury of our peers is insane. Refer to my earlier post about people cheering for animated condiments. Do you want these people deciding your fate? We have a system where either the defense or the prosecution has to lie to try and win. OJ's attorneys knew damn well he was guilty. It is a contest between attorneys and the best attorney usually wins, justice be damned.

I could go on and on about other things messed up ...but I will save those for another post.

[briguy 0]

Quote

I think our whole system is in need of a major overhaul, the constitution included.

the beauty of that old piece of paper is in its flexibility. it is a foundations that can be amended, changed or re-written without the whole structure falling apart.

for more detail on amending the comsititution, look http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

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

[billvon 2,463]

>I think our whole system is in need of a major overhaul,
>the constitution included.

No problem! Amend it. The mechanism exists to do just that.

>How crazy is it to think that a document written 200 years ago
>can still be applicable today without major changes?

I can think of a document 4000 years old that a lot of people still heed. (And it's one no one voted on!)

>A company would be out of business in short order if it was not
> constantly manipulating its business model to adapt to the current
> conditions.

Right. But the reason it can compete at all is that the LAWS that regulate its existence do not change arbitrarily, and are enforced evenly.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How crazy is it to think that a document written 200 years ago can still be applicable today without major changes?

notions of democracy and freedom haven't really chanced, have they? We just implement it better now without exclusions for minorities.

Quote

I think the idea of a trial by a jury of our peers is insane.

far more insane would be a trial by a jury that is not our peers.

Juries could be improved if the jury duty selection process wasn't so incredibly stupid. Give people more (any) flexibility in scheduling when they appear and fewer people won't blow it off.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Of course we can. It IS wrong. Heck, NAMBLA is wrong. The Westboro Baptist Church is wrong. Pat Robertson is wrong. Michael Jackson is wrong. Are you going to silence all those people? Or just the ones you disagree with?

For the millionth time now, I am not trying to curb unpopular opinions, nor am I saying that people shouldn't be allowed to express unpopular opinions. I am not sure why you keep putting those words in my mouth. Argue the point that I am making, which is that the timing and nature of the protests which are deliberately designed to inflict hurt upon the families of the soldiers, should be restricted. It is no different than bubble zone laws which require anti-abortion protests to be held no closer than 500 yards away from clinics. If a protester is truly confident in what he/she has to say they can get their message accross without harrassing people who are trying to say their last goodbye to a loved one.

As far as I am I am concerned when it comes to freedom of speech I will even allow those sick animals from that NAMBLA to spew their horrid ideas because I beleive in freedom of speech.

If it is a constitutionally protected right under the guise of freedom of speech to disrupt a funeral and tell the mother/spouse/children of a dead soldier that their loved one will burn in hell for an eternity, then it is also my constitutional right to;

>Repeatedly call people I don't like at all hours of the night to make obscene phone calls.

> Scream "Jump you pussy" at a suicidal person on a ledge.

> Torment terminally ill children by telling them that they will die horrible painfull deaths form their diseases.

Our society strikes a balance between freedom of speech/expression and harrassing/abusive behavior. That is why people can be charged with mental/emotional abuse. That is why teachers are not allowed to address black students using the n-word.

Quote

We are Americans who believe that the Constitution is central to our society and our government, and we protect it even when people who we disagree with are covered by its protections as well. As a smarter guy than us once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That's what you do if the you truly believe in the Constitution, and believe that it's not just a bunch of words to be reinterpreted as political whim dictates.

Again, there are plenty of places that do not heed any such document; those are good places to go if you wish to legislate against the speech you dislike. China is a good example.