Reply With Quote
Who would be dumb enough to do that? Walmart sells mostly the same products as other stores, and i have never seen a store that doesn't sell Chinese products.
Have to be pretty dumb to do that.
A Wal-Mart parking lot is not governmental property; it's private property and people who own property can limit the speech of others on that property. If I went into your home, you could most assuredly make me leave if you didn't like the things that I said. I don't have any First Amendment rights in your home because the First Amendment applies only to governmental action. Your home is really no different than Wal-Mart's parking lot in that sense and if Wal-mart doesn't like what you're saying, it can require you to leave its property.
Who would be dumb enough to do that? Walmart sells mostly the same products as other stores, and i have never seen a store that doesn't sell Chinese products.
Have to be pretty dumb to do that.
The best thing that can be done is quit giving these s attention.
But perhaps another option is if a more powerful group could step in and rent out all of the public space near these funerals so they can prevent these people from gathering nearby.
That, or if that weren't possible, stage a similar gathering in close proximity and simply outshout them.
I'd agree that your solution would be preferable.
Does Westboro just show up for these things or do they have to get permits?
Somebody has to know in advance that this is happening. There should be options at that somebody's disposal to cir vent them.
something should be said for the people that allow them to rent the space.
(if in fact the land/lands are privately owned.)
There is, they are a biker gang called the patriot guard riders.
I can't speak for all cases, but for all of the cases I have read, it is all public property. Fred Phelps used to be a Civil Rights lawyer who was well known for being the white guy who took all of the black people's cases. He was really hated for that in the south. My point in bringing this up is he knows, legally, what he is doing. His daughter is also a lawyer and they are very meticulous in their process.
Which makes them even more slimy. To use the law, to cause pain and suffering of others...
+1, unfortunately
Eh, they're far enough away legally that they're not necessarily "disturbing" the funeral. It becomes a battle of two different freedoms; I'd agree freedom of speech wins out. The people aren't forcibly disturbing the assembly, after all.
To think the father has to pay these ' s" is disturbing.
Courts dont control the permit process. They sit in after the fact, considering damages in torts and infringement of civil rights, as they did here, but I would be suprised if the permitting allowances weren't already adjusted.
I know this...this is one of the limits on free speech. It only applies on govt property, and the protections only bind govt actors. Thats my point...free speech isnt all-encompassing.
The permitting is where the limits have to be laid.
Until it is at the expense of another citizen.
Right, but within limits. After all, if I say that your words prevent my ability to peacefully assemble on this message board with other friends, you'd laugh me off, and rightfully so.
If I say that you being a conservative in Oregon affects my ability to peacefully assemble and get drinks, that'd be laughable as well.
So obviously, there's a distance factor. Usually, it's written into law as a certain distance away, because it's hard to put things like, "Far enough away not to be heard" into law.
As well, you're also interrupting the freedom of speech of the protestors. What good is freedom of speech if the people you wish to direct it to are out of earshot? It's the same problem I have with "Free speech zones" at rallies. Kinda defeats the purpose of protecting freedom of speech.
Its not freedom of speech or freedom to assemble in grieving...its about balancing those competing interests.
The interests of the grieving family can be held so heavy as to outweigh free speech, and that determination can be implemented through the permit process, to keep picketers a far distance away from the gravesite. This can be done in the interests of: preserving the sanc y of the funeral, avoiding having grieving family, who are already under severe stress from being confronted by people protesting their own family members lifestyle, preserving the public peace, preventing assaults, prevent severe emotional distress, etc.
what-huh?
Yep... That wasn't very comprehensive. Ignore it.
Pssst I already said that.
actually this favors the family.
Let the protesters spread their message, but there is no reason those views need to be thrust upon the grieving family. They arent going to be receptive to the protest, the protest is not aimed at them, other than to punish them for being related to a gay family member, the message doesnt reach the public at all.
Let them carry their message to a place where people might hear it who wouldnt be harmed by it. The general public.
I say within sight or sound of the procession and service should be barred from getting a permit.
I was referring to this.
I think it was you that said this before, but they don't protest gay people much anymore. This guy wasn't gay. Their message is "everything bad that happens in this country is because we aren't eradicating gay people. Soldiers are killed by God because of us allowing gay people to live in this country. Additionally, because we aren't actively rooting out and getting rid of the gays, everyone in this country, when they die, are going straight to "
I see now...my bad. I still say just by showing up with signs regarding gay lifestyle, the group implies that the deceased was gay and they are picketing him or her as the casket is lowered into the ground. Di able (not being gay, or accusations of such, but protesting at another family's service). Even if, as here, that isnt the case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions