[sigtau]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/veterans-bill-military-funerals_n_1733080.html

A new law places limitations on those wishing to protest at a military funeral in the United States.  The law essentially states:

• Protesters cannot picket within 2 hours before or after a funeral service.
• Protesters must stay at least 300 feet away from the families of mourners at a military funeral.

The law also contains numerous provisions for veteran healthcare, education, and benefits.

I understand the implications of this in that it infringes on free speech, but--even in light of the Supreme Court's ruling that Westboro's activities does indeed fall under "free speech"--could Westboro's activities not fall under hate crime activities or inciting riots?

I'm all for free speech, but this may be my one exception.  Seriously, **** these people.

EDIT: I broke'd the link at the top of this post; should be fixed now.

[achtung]

Code: [Select]

<achtung> nope
<achtung> limits free speech
<achtung> bad
<HerraTohtori> we discussed this earlier
<sigtau> I know the consensus is "protect free speech"
<sigtau> but seriously
<achtung> it's easy to ignore dickwads
<Aoyagi> Not really
<achtung> it's not easy to ignore the government and its police force
<sigtau> when the **** was it ever okay to misuse your right to free speech to be disruptive
<Aoyagi> they are the majority
<Turambar[REDACTED]> i'd prefer something more targeted
<sigtau> and by disruptive
<sigtau> I mean spitting in the face (literally) of passerby at a military funeral
<Turambar[REDACTED]> like, something that would let you punch people outside a funeral for trolling
<Turambar[REDACTED]> and protect you from being charged with assault
<achtung> free fist
<HerraTohtori> the exceptions to free speech in US are defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.
<Turambar[REDACTED]> thank god for gay soldiers
<Turambar[REDACTED]> them's fightin words
<HerraTohtori> I'd say the WBC counts as defamation, incitement to riot (albeit not very successful) as well as fighting words
<Turambar[REDACTED]> wait
<achtung> All of those could've been used
<Turambar[REDACTED]> that's 'dead' soldiers, not 'gay'
<Turambar[REDACTED]> whoops
<achtung> we didn't need another law
<Turambar[REDACTED]> i want to see Romney's tax returns
<sigtau> I'm pretty sure the only reason another law was passed was because Supreme Court directly intervened last time WBC came up in a legal context
<HerraTohtori> achtung: had supreme court decided that WBC's actions were legal?


[Dragon]

Good riddance.
I was always an advocate of free speech, but people at a funeral are mourning their friend/family member who recently died an unpleasant death (or just a normal one, though I don't think somebody would protest at a funeral of an old military man/woman who died from old age or health issues), and may not want to think about politics at the moment. There's a line between "free speech" and "rude trolling". Any tactful person knows where the line is, but unfortunately, not everybody can called that. I hope this quiets down both WBC and Scientologists a bit.

[Aardwolf]

So those are, formally, the exceptions to "free speech"... defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words?

Interesting!

[Alex Heartnet]

I never quite understood this whole 'support our troops' thing.  It almost seems like a method to distract us from all the unpopular wars that our soldiers are made to fight in.

Honor the troops, hate seeing them fight.  Mixed message, much?

Also, how does this law define 'military funeral' and 'families of mourners'?  I won't put it past the crooks and con artists in Washington to give a distorted definition of those words within the bill.

[Sushi]

So those are, formally, the exceptions to "free speech"... defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words?

Interesting!

There are quite a large number of exceptions to "free" speech.

As far as I'm concerned, this kind of protest falls cleanly under the category of "harassment." Pretty sure that isn't protected speech and shouldn't be.

[Dragon]

So those are, formally, the exceptions to "free speech"... defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words?

Interesting!

As I understand it, "free speech" means generally "say whatever you want, but politely". You may say the government is bad and should be replaced (that's what I say all the time ), but actively trying to start a riot could actually harm quite a few people if you succeeded. And it wouldn't solve a thing. Unfortunately, since a lot of people are not polite enough to keep themselves from calling other people names or being trolls, and there's a general consensus duels are a thing of the past (though I wouldn't mind having them back, at least in some nonlethal form), it's a good idea to have laws against such behavior.

Also, how does this law define 'military funeral' and 'families of mourners'?  I won't put it past the crooks and con artists in Washington to give a distorted definition of those words within the bill.

I think that "military funeral" is a funeral of any military person performed with military honors (you know, 21 gun salute, dress uniforms, the chaplain instead of the local priest...). Families of mourners... well, most likely it means people who are neither unrelated spectators nor the honor platoon (or whatever the guys that give 21 gun salute are called in English).

[Alex Heartnet]

I think that "military funeral" is a funeral of any military person performed with military honors (you know, 21 gun salute, dress uniforms, the chaplain instead of the local priest...). Families of mourners... well, most likely it means people who are neither unrelated spectators nor the honor platoon (or whatever the guys that give 21 gun salute are called in English).

That's the dictionary definition, yes.  But the bill might claim that 'Military Funeral' is something completely different.  If this is indeed the case, it won't be the first time Congress has tried to trick us.

[Flipside]

The WBC don't really 'protest' at funerals, it's not as if they are suggesting change or are angry in any way that the person is dead. They advertise, it's a public event that brings lots of attention, and acting in such a manner helps them get as much, if not more attention, it's purely promotion for their own church, and I'm pretty sure there are some legal issues with forcibly promoting your own religious beliefs as a third-party organization at a ceremony for a different Church. It's 'ripping veils off Muslims' type behavior that got missionaries into so much trouble.

[redsniper]

I mean who else really tries to protest at a funeral. I don't think anyone's free speech is being impacted much by that except Westboro's. Seriously, **** those guys.

[Nemesis6]

Anyway, it makes me sad when people say that the WBC' activities are not protests but advertising. It's the same bull**** many activists face -- "Who's paying you to do this?", "You're just doing this for YOURSELF!". Thus continues the torrent of slime that we all love to pour on people who stand by their convictions and do it in the public forum... You know, they're just communists, or angry at the world, or doing it for the money, or their actions somehow make people angry therefore we need to stop them. It gets really absurd whenever I see people try to explain the whole "they're doing it for the money" thing; they'll mention that WBC sues. Yeah, they sue people who try to infringe upon their right to protest. If people didn't try to suppress their activities, they wouldn't see a dime from the legal system. Anyway, this whole thing is a classic example of tyranny of the majority: The majority are patriots, WBC is not. WBC is oppressed.

"First they came..." is relevant here. Likewise is the quote "Freedom of speech is always the freedom of dissenters."

[Klaustrophobia]

it always frustrates me when congress (or any branch or level of government really) flexes its muscles and weighs in on things it doesn't need to, whether it's something i agree with or not.  trivial or unnecessary laws are NEVER good.

[The E]

Here's the thing though: Freedom of Speech does not mean "You are free to say whatever, whenever, without fear of consequences". It means "You are free to criticize the government without fear of retribution".

Thus continues the torrent of slime that we all love to pour on people who stand by their convictions and do it in the public forum

If your conviction is that everyone is Doing It Wrong (or, you know, Doing It is WRONG), and that an entity that can not be proven to exist dislikes certain groups of people, which is in some way or form bad for those disliked, you kinda deserve all the slime you get.
The WBC, IMHO, does not stand for anything except generic misreadings of the bible and the intent of christian belief.

Anyway, this whole thing is a classic example of tyranny of the majority: The majority are patriots, WBC is not. WBC is oppressed.

Have they been forcefully disbanded? No.
Has their message been deemed illegal, and spreading of that message been made an actionable offence? No.
Have they been stopped from doing their so-called protests? No.

All that has happened here is that they have to keep a minimum distance. They have not been forbidden from spreading their message.

You're very much confusing the right of the agitator to point out flaws in his government with the right of a random bystander to disrupt what is essentially a private function. You will note that the latter one does not exist, and never has existed.

[Black Wolf]

I find it amusing that the right to free speech in the US can have all these checks and limitations but the right to bear arms, **** no, that **** is sacrosanct.

[Polpolion]

the right to free speech in the US can have all these checks and limitations but the right to bear arms, **** no, that **** is sacrosanct.

erm... this isn't the case at all.

ed: Not that I want to derail the topic or anything. I've always felt that these kinds of laws are around not to inhibit free speech but to prevent people from being annoying ****wits. For the most part, I agree with what The E said.

[MP-Ryan]

Good.

I was never so proud of our immigration system as I was when WBC members were blocked from entering Canada and listed as a hate group.

[jr2]

Isn't WBC the ones who basically carry signs about God hating homosexuals, etc?

I usually get a little peeved when I hear about groups like this... so, decided to post a bit of a vent:

After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” {{Tax collectors were regarded as traitors, as the nation of Israel at that point was occupied by Rome}}

Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

  {{Note that, based on a correct understanding of the teachings of the Bible, all are sick; however, if you proclaim yourself to be perfect, well you won't be heading to the doctor to get fixed, then, and your condition will remain.}}

When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”

Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”

“Tell me, teacher,” he said.

“Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, {{A denarius was the usual daily wage of a day laborer.}} and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”

Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”

“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. {{jr2 notes: FYI, in that culture, this (not greeting a guest with a kiss, offering water to wash the feet, and oil for the guest's head) was high insult.  I guess you could compare it to inviting someone to dinner and setting the table but omitting their settings.}} Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

For it is by grace {{undeserved favor}} you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

As for those who like to pretend that they are somehow better than those they are (if they believe their Book, anyways) supposed to be trying to reach with God's message of mercy, I think Jesus has a word (speaking to the religious ruling elite of the day):

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. {{Cue many churchgoers falling over or mobbing the pulpit if they heard this level of language.. Jesus doesn't mince words.}}

“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

[SypheDMar]

I find it hard to believe that anybody on HLP would defend Westboro Church let alone say that they're being oppressed.

[Polpolion]

thanks a lot jr2 now I keep getting right wing fundamentalist Christian ads

[Dilmah G]

*snip*

^This is good ****.

Free speech in the literal sense of the word is a double-edged sword, that with allowing people the liberty to say what they want, people can then harm one another and infringe other people's liberties with hate-speech. You guys just need to loosen up and change your constitution already to allow hate-speech laws.