RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional

RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ouchthathurt -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 9:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ouchthathurt My daughter's brother in law died serving his country and those horrible people showed up at his funeral. Thank god the patriot riders were there and spared the family from their protests. They were revving their engines to drown out their venom and hate. There's no excuse for not imposing the protestors stay a certain distance away from the family and services, and why could they have not left the time restrictions in place. They have a right to protest but not in your face harassment... and that's what it is. Easy to stand behind the constitution instead of using common decency in rulings such as this. Protesting in general is often times harassment. It's the nature of the beast. Take PETA, for example. They stand in the streets and yell, swear and harass people wearing fur. Take a Union picket Line, many times they yell, swear and harass people trying to shop at their store or " scabs " goign in to do the work. Any protest other than a MLK type protest is harassing someone. So if WBC is harassing mourners, why is that any different from the fur wearers or scabs ? I understand the nature of mourners is different, but the constitution wasn't written to give exception to it based on emotion or individual circumstance. How you can compare to a person choosing to wear a fur coat or to those crossing a picket line is amazing to me. These families don't have a choice if their son or daughter, husbands or fathers choose to serve their countries and in doing so lose their lives. They are mourning a loss and you compare them to people wearing fur... I am shaking my head on that one. It's tough being a conservative on this site... it's why I rarely post anything. I probably shouldn't come back to see the responses... you guys might make me cry :( And that's not nice :)

ouchthathurt -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 9:23:00 PM)
That was supposed to be a reply to Jefff.... Still have to figure out these post rules.... sooooo to Jefffff ~~~ We can only hope... preferably more than one... like 10 or 40 or all of them. I am a caregiver... I save lifes for a living... but these people deserve nothing. I doubt I would lift a finger to save anyone of them based on all the additional pain these people have inflicted on grieving families. I will be keeping my fingers crossed.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 9:28:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood My point was that if we vigorously defend right of speech, however abhorrent we find the message, then we should apply the same vehemence to the right to do it without intimidation. If we have to make a threat to break one law to protect another, then something is awry. They are fruit loops of the first degree, but someday you may hold a wildly unpopular view too and want to do so without intimidation. How much intimidation or harassment they use is a grey area legally. Surrounding them with bikers doesn't make them any less 'wrong' that they originally were, just outnumbered. Leaving my Altamont inference out of the equation : I would disagree. In defending their right to free speech and assemley, I am also defending mine. They have the right to protest and I have the right to do whatever is within the legal boundaries to protest right back, including intimidation. Is WBC not intimidating the mourners ? Their rights were just upheld, so were mine to intimidate them. It does not have to be them being surrouned, per se, the same reult could be obtained by making a line along the road they are protesting on. And yes, they would be outnumbered and they would leave. For me, the end result is getting them to leave. No, it does not make them any less wrong. Getting them to leave the funeral is not an attempt to showcase their ignorance, but to give the family and loved ones peace in their time of mourning. IMO. mbmbn

EbonyWood -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 9:37:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood My point was that if we vigorously defend right of speech, however abhorrent we find the message, then we should apply the same vehemence to the right to do it without intimidation. If we have to make a threat to break one law to protect another, then something is awry. They are fruit loops of the first degree, but someday you may hold a wildly unpopular view too and want to do so without intimidation. How much intimidation or harassment they use is a grey area legally. Surrounding them with bikers doesn't make them any less 'wrong' that they originally were, just outnumbered. Leaving my Altamont inference out of the equation : I would disagree. In defending their right to free speech and assemley, I am also defending mine. They have the right to protest and I have the right to do whatever is within the legal boundaries to protest right back, including intimidation. mbmbn Intimidation isn't within the legal boundary.

ouchthathurt -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 9:41:10 PM)
That final paragraph was in hopes that you all would take it easy on me... at least for a little while. I seen people chewed up and spit out for speaking their opinions... that's the reason I stay to myself. This one however hit way to close to home to not speak up.

EbonyWood -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 9:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot . For me, the end result is getting them to leave. mbmbn If you believe absolutely in the ends justifying the means, then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Laws are specifically created to prevent this philosophy becoming manifest.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 9:46:28 PM)
I am very sorry for your loss and the WBC infliction of pain. I was not comparing, I was trying to illustrate that harassment occurs in many protests, and where do you draw the line ? From a purely Constitutional standpoint. Let's say I abhore fur wearers as much as servant and DS abhore the WBC. Once you start chipping away at the constitution by what the " popular " opinion is at the moment is the day the Constituion dies. Would it be OK if I got enough votes on the ballot to get a referendum to have furriers banned from advertising in my state and it passed ? People feel as < not more > passionately about other issues too. We can't start cherry picking who we let have First Ammendment rights. I use the fur reference, but it could be anything. I am not a liberal, btw. I am a Libertarian. We are even more unpopular than Conservatives. mbmbn

maybemaybenot -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 9:48:43 PM)
I will respectfully agree to disagree.[:)] mbmbn

Lucienne -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/16/2010 11:06:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Shouldn’t there be a difference between an individuals right to protest and a groups rights. For instance could there not be a local law requiring group protests to obtain a local license so proper police protection, crowd and traffic control could be provided. And could not this license require reimbursement for services requiring a posted bond? Could they not make failure to obtain this license a felony or at least a heavy fine? It seems to me a creative governmental entity could easily make their protests at least an expensive one. It would be easy to justify more for protection of these protesters then others… otherwise the more provocative the protest the greater the bond because of the possibility of violence. Butch A few things to note about the Phelps clan... they've been doing these protest for nearly 30 years. Half of the adults are lawyers. Cities in Kansas have been toying with assorted restrictions for at least 20 years and many of them get knocked down by the courts. The ones that remain - permits, notice, security, proper distance - are strictly observed by the protesters. They will never give you an excuse to shut them down. Never.You set a boundary, and they'll find a way to walk right up to that line without crossing it. In the early 90s, they were protesting the funerals of men who died of AIDs. There they were, in all their "God hates Fags" glory, standing outside of the KU campus chapel, while people inside mourned the loss of a loved one. Appropriately outraged, the Lawrence City Council passed a resolution banning protesters from churches in the 24 hour window surrounding a funeral. Not bothered by this at all, the next time an AIDs victim was scheduled for a funeral service at the chapel, the Phelps crew showed up 48 hours in advance and protested a damn wedding with all their AIDs funeral specific signs. This dance has been going on for a long time and they are very good at it. It's only getting more attention now because they've gone the extra irrational step of protesting soldier's funerals, which is resulting in state bans across the country. Next thing you should know is that although their targets and signs have gotten more extreme and irrational, they really don't have the same enthusiasm level as they did 20 years ago. Old man Fred is ill and his daughter Shirley tries really hard but she just can't match the hate. It's more like going through the motions with her. I most recently saw the clan last spring when they protested an appearance by the director Kevin Smith (whose next project is a horror movie based on Westboro Baptist). After which I concluded, we don't need the Patriot Guard. We don't need intimidation and threats of violence. We just need to organize a human chain of Kevin Smith fans to stand between the Phelps crew and their intended target. Because Kevin Smith fans will just stand there, point, laugh, and take pictures of the protesters like they're a curious display at the zoo. This disappoints the protesters greatly. On the legal question -- I don't have a hard time at all saying that Judge Gaitan is correct. Being an asshole isn't against the law.

ouchthathurt -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 5:35:58 AM)
We can always negotiate with WBC for free airtime as they did when the little Amish girls were murdered in a school house and they planned to protest those funerals. Their initial reasons to be there .... "Those Amish people, everyone is sitting around talking about those poor little girls — blah, blah, blah — they brought the wrath upon themselves," Phelps-Roper said, adding that the Amish "don't serve God, they serve themselves." But they canceled the protest as follows -- "Phelps-Roper, daughter of Rev. Fred Phelps, said the church had planned to cancel the protests if given media time on radio and television as a platform to espouse Westboro's beliefs." And they did in fact get their air-time. Try protesting in a court building, a police station, on a plane... you will be excorted out. I am sure there are a hundreds of places where if you are disrupting or disturbing others you will be hauled away. At least my home state of Missouri had the balls to take on those henious people and not just sit there and say... well hey it's their right to free speech. When are people going to stand up for what is right?? Not based on the constitution but based on human decency. Our country certainly is getting better now that we've taken GOD out of everything, dumbed down our school systems, let gangs have certain neighborhoods because the police can't go in and just stop people in search of gangbangers with weapons.... oh no that's racial profiling... therefore we allow them to kill each other and innocent bystanders... what's a little collateral damage... but damn... don't let the people of Chicago have a handgun outside of their house.... but wait... doesn't the constitution give people the right to bear arms... and I don't recall it saying anything about only having it inside your home. Amazing how every night at work I get at least one or two gunshot victims shot outside by a handgun in Chicago's safe streets. But god forbid, let the good people protect themselves as the contstitution allows them to do. Let's just let the bad guys have them... WTF!!! People use the constitution when it suits them.... and take away the rights of the decent law abiding citizens... imho.

Archer -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 5:38:41 AM)
You mention this just as I was about to post the fact that these bozo's tend to have more law degrees than you can shake a stick at. They count on counter protests, and they count on the counter protesters being less than self disciplined. They want you to cross that legal line, so they can sue you. They work the system very well, and they count on the fact that they can raise all sorts of noise and hate from the crowd all the while remaining disciplined and praying that you will cross the line and hit one of them, so they can sue you and add that money to their war chest. If you don't have the self discipline to match them, it;s best you simply support those who do.

thompsonx -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 6:31:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ouchthathurt That final paragraph was in hopes that you all would take it easy on me... at least for a little while. I seen people chewed up and spit out for speaking their opinions... that's the reason I stay to myself. This one however hit way to close to home to not speak up. The only people on this board who get "chewed up and spit out" are the ignorant,stupid and disingenuous. Truth on the other hand makes you fireproof.

EbonyWood -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 6:39:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ouchthathurt When are people going to stand up for what is right?? Not based on the constitution but based on human decency. but wait... doesn't the constitution give people the right to bear arms... People use the constitution when it suits them.... and take away the rights of the decent law abiding citizens... imho. Yeah, they sure do. [8\|]

MrRodgers -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 8:50:29 AM)
This is all correct and is in accordance with our alleged constitutional rights. So, I ask...why is it that those who are in fact protesting G8 and G20 and other large govt. foums all manage to get so many people locked up, even those watching from the parks ? This is still after many 100's won a lawsuit against the DC govt. protesting a G8 summit. The lawsuit was won but the mission of getting protesters off the the streets...was accomplished. So what happens ? It all happens again. The courts have to my knowledge have never ruled that local govt. requiring a 'parade permit' (insurance & exper. req.) for a demonstration...is in fact equally unconstitutional.

Lucienne -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 10:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ouchthathurt At least my home state of Missouri had the balls to take on those henious people and not just sit there and say... well hey it's their right to free speech. When are people going to stand up for what is right?? Not based on the constitution but based on human decency. You have questionable balls analysis skills. Passing "Fred Phelps is a jerk" legislation is the easiest thing in the world to do. You'd probably get more votes for that than for "I like kittens," because more people hate kittens than like Fred Phelps. It took no "balls" to do this. It's just another pandering and meaningless display.

kdsub -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 10:38:25 AM)
Thanks for the reply...you make a lot of sense. Butch

StrangerThan -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 12:39:13 PM)
As much as I hate saying so, I'd have to agree with the judge that the ban is unconstitutional. It just blows my mind that anyone would have as much disrespect for family, for life in general as to go to a funeral and hurt the people already hurting. There already are restrictions on free speech. I guess the question in my mind is, the right to assembly doesn't grant the right to assemble anywhere, at any time. I'm no lawyer, but I thought there was process involved, like... permits, how close one could be. Seems there would be some leeway there in providing some distance from the family.

truckinslave -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 3:58:53 PM)
quote: Someday those inbred Westoboro kooks will protest the wrong family. And I will loudly applaud whatever actions are bestowed upon them. Not that I've thought about it or anything.... But while they are at the funeral of some soldier, their church, their homes and such are sitting unguarded.

truckinslave -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 4:01:38 PM)
quote: Someone died at Altamont. I think that rather adds to the analogy.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Judge: Mo. funeral protest ban unconstitutional (8/17/2010 5:35:22 PM)
Phelps and his inbred pissants have planned 2 protests in Tennessee over the last couple of years. Both times, when they saw what was waiting, they pussed out. Maybe they dont have THAT much faith that their version of God will protect them.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125