Illinois' "Let them rest in peace act" signed into law.

[briguy 0]

I'm completely against protesting at funerals, but do we need a law eroding freedom?

Check this crap out:

“It is unfathomable to me that anyone would stage a protest at a funeral. How can any decent person think that disturbing a family grieving the death of any loved one, let alone the death of one of our soldiers, is acceptable? It’s not, and the law I’m signing today makes that clear by making protesting within 200 feet of a funeral a crime in Illinois,” said Governor Blagojevich.


and THEN, they put the spin on it...

said Lt. Governor Pat Quinn “The Let Them Rest in Peace Act protects the First Amendment religious rights of families to bury their dead with reverence and dignity, and everyone in the Land of Lincoln believes in this fundamental principle of human decency.”

What a load of crap. What's next?

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

[tcnelson 1]

wow...a whole 200 ft. go get 'em illinois!

as far as the eroding freedom bit, i don't think i'll lose sleep over my right to protest people while they're attending a funeral.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Trent 0]

Quote

as far as the eroding freedom bit, i don't think i'll lose sleep over my right to protest people while they're attending a funeral.

But but but... next thing you know... you'll have jack-booted thugs watching your every move!! I mean, it's not far fetched is it?

It's sad that we have so much trouble teaching people decency as children that people feel the need to have laws to make people act like they should anyway.

Oh, hello again!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What a load of crap. What's next?

So you are in favor of allowing rude people to interrupt and interfere with a family's grieving and their respectful burial ceremony of their loved one?

[Andy9o8 0]

From a standpoint of morality and ethics, I applaud the intent behind these laws, which is to curb some of the offensive sting of those self-styled “religious” whackos from Kansas who are protesting military funerals around the country. Several states have recently passed or are considering such laws.

Having said that, my neutral, strictly academic prediction is that if these laws are challenged in court on constitutional grounds (and yes, there are conflicting rights here), regardless of what happens at the trial court level, ultimately many appellate courts may find the laws to be unconstitutional, especially if they’re not very narrowly tailored (and, to some appellate courts, maybe even if they are). It may hinge on whether the protests actually interrupt or interfere with the funerals (in which case the laws may pass constitutional muster), or whether they are merely offensive to those attending (in which case it’s a closer call).

These people don’t deserve the publicity; but if the court challenges to the laws start coming, it should be interesting to watch what happens.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

What a load of crap. What's next?

So you are in favor of allowing rude people to interrupt and interfere with a family's grieving and their respectful burial ceremony of their loved one?

Aren't most cemetaries on private property? If so, I don't understand why there's a problem. Just charge them with tresspassing.
-

[billvon 2,400]

>So you are in favor of allowing rude people to interrupt and interfere
> with a family's grieving and their respectful burial ceremony of their
>loved one?

I am in favor of the First Amendment, which states that people's right to assemble in public wherever they choose and say what they want shall not be abridged. The First Amendment guarantees the right to say what you want - it does not guarantee the right to not be offended.

That being said, the 200 foot rule seems like a decent compromise between the rights of the protesters and the rights of the family, provided it is not used to confine the protesters away from the public eye. For families that wish to not experience protesters even 200 feet away, a private cemetary solves their problem.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Aren't most cemetaries on private property? If so, I don't understand why there's a problem. Just charge them with tresspassing.

Yes, I'm sure that's case. The law is more for when the assholes set up their protest on public property outside the cemetery gate, or around the perimeter of the grounds, with bullhorns.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the rights of the protesters and the rights of the family

Those who want to protest the war can do it anywhere. But there's only one place for the grieving family to bury their loved one. The protesters should go elsewhere. In this conflict between the rights of two groups, the scale of justice should clearly lean in favor of those burying their dead, and not towards rude assholes.

[Richards 0]

I think it's a stretch to refer to this as simply being a freedom of speach issue. The other issue is one of allowing people to greive at the time of a loved ones passing. Slippery slope arguments about what a law could lead to can be applied to anything. If taken to extremes freedom of speech can allow me to

>Share insider information with an institutional investor
> make racist remarks to an visible minority co-worker
>etc

I am not schooled in the law, and won't pretend to know the specifics, but I don't think you need to be a lawyer or law student to recognize that sometimes basic human decency does require that we place restrictions on the behaviour of certain people. Doing what they are doing at funerals is unneccessarily cruel. If their viewpoint has any substance then they can acheive their goals by protesting at government buildings.

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.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm completely against protesting at funerals, but do we need a law eroding freedom?

Restrictions on "time, place and manner" of speech are perfectly acceptable. I'm pretty hardcore civil libertarian, and even I accept that as a given.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lindsey 0]

So from now on in Illinois if you don't want someone protesting on your front steps....throw a funeral! That'll put a halt to them....lol. I agree--It's BS.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jdthomas 0]

Quote

, which is to curb some of the offensive sting of those self-styled “religious” whackos from Kansas .

Hey we are all not wackos! easy on what you say to lump us into a group..
But you are right, there are som wackos that are making problems..
This thread is intresting and I am not sure where this wacko from kansas stands yet..
Joe

www.greenboxphotography.com

[billvon 2,400]

>In this conflict between the rights of two groups, the scale of justice
> should clearly lean in favor of those burying their dead, and not
> towards rude assholes.

Nope, sorry. They are indeed assholes - but they are assholes whose rights are protected explicitly under the constitution, and they have a right to BE assholes. As I said before, the 200 foot thing is a reasonable compromise between the rights of said assholes and the families.

[briguy 0]

Quote

Those who want to protest the war can do it anywhere.

you are so uninformed. the protesters from the kansas group are not protesting the war, they are protesting governmental support of homosexuality.

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

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

the scale of justice should clearly lean in favor of those burying their dead, and not towards rude assholes.

So, I am assuming that you were in favour of postponing or changing locations of the NRA meeting after the shootings in Columbine? I think that lists pretty high on my list of rude assholes.

[airtwardo 6]

Nope, sorry. They are indeed assholes - but they are assholes whose rights are protected explicitly under the constitution, and they have a right to BE assholes

***

I don't agree...

If you want to protest the war at the Presidents ranch, or the steps of the White House that's one thing.

But to single out the family of a fallen solider in my mind constitutes harassment.

What does that family have to do with instituting a policy of war?

These 'protesters' are nothing but no class attention seekers.

Kind of like how you can protest in front of an abortion clinic...but put 200 people in the street in front of someones house that's HAD an abortion and you're out of line.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[2fat2fly 0]

I am admittedly a redneck and if my kid brother had died when he was in the mideast and some group decided to make a political statement at our service to honor his memory....well it's like I told a jerk in Alabama a few weeks ago "Right now, I'm thinkin' that it's worth the $300 they'll charge me for whipping your ass". Not an enlightened view, but some places/events are not platforms

I am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried

[billvon 2,400]

>These 'protesters' are nothing but no class attention seekers.

Right. But many people make exactly the same claim over Michael Moore, or Cindy Sheehan. Personal dislike of a person/group should not enter into the issue.

>Kind of like how you can protest in front of an abortion clinic...but put
>200 people in the street in front of someones house that's HAD an
>abortion and you're out of line.

Protesters DO protest in front of doctor's houses who perform abortions - and it's legal. Even if they are harassing him, and even if they are no class attention seekers.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I am admittedly a redneck and if my kid brother had died when he was in the mideast and some group decided to make a political statement at our service to honor his memory....well it's like I told a jerk in Alabama a few weeks ago "Right now, I'm thinkin' that it's worth the $300 they'll charge me for whipping your ass". Not an enlightened view, but some places/events are not platforms

Yeah but that is assuming you don't kill him by beating the guy into a pulp.

Oh that is right I forgot that some people would not do something to defend their loved ones RIGHTS to have respect payed upon them by those that knew them, WITHOUT HARRASSMENT.

[airtwardo 6]

Protesters DO protest in front of doctor's houses who perform abortions - and it's legal. Even if they are harassing him, and even if they are no class attention seekers.


***

Agreed they do...

The Dr. is implementing the policy that's reciving the attention.

But can they in front of the person 'receiving' the abortion?


The person 'getting' the abortion, may be doing so for personal health, 'live saving' reasons...and it is deemed a necessary procedure.

To protest that is, again in my opinion...harassment.


I know when that was tried out in East County San Diego some years back the protesters were cited and removed.


WHAT they were cited for escapes me...

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Oh that is right I forgot that some people would not do something to defend their loved ones RIGHTS to have respect payed upon them by those that knew them, WITHOUT HARRASSMENT.

Exactly where is that right written down?

[billvon 2,400]

>Oh that is right I forgot that some people would not do something to
> defend their loved ones RIGHTS to have respect payed upon them
> by those that knew them, WITHOUT HARRASSMENT.

One of the results of the freedoms we have in the US is that you do NOT have the right to not be offended. It can be a heavy burden at times, but it is part of the burden we accept because we value our freedoms over our desire to not be offended.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

the scale of justice should clearly lean in favor of those burying their dead, and not towards rude assholes.

So, I am assuming that you were in favour of postponing or changing locations of the NRA meeting after the shootings in Columbine? I think that lists pretty high on my list of rude assholes.

Been watching Moore's crap again, hmm?

1. Meeting was in Denver, not Columbine and had been scheduled years in advance.

2. All activities (normally seminars, workshops, etc.) except the general membership meeting were cancelled. Under NY law they are required to have an annual meeting.

3. Columbine happened 11 days before the meeting. NY law states that they would have to notify members at least 10 days before a change of venue.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Those who want to protest the war can do it anywhere.

you are so uninformed. the protesters from the kansas group are not protesting the war, they are protesting governmental support of homosexuality.

So they're protesting homosexuality, by interfering with military funerals.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...

Are you in favor of allowing this to occur? You didn't answer the first time I asked. Since you started this thread with a protest against the law, you shouldn't be afraid to give a direct "yes" or "no" answer. Please do so.