Supreme Court to weigh in on free speech during funerals.

[boutons_deux]

These kinds "you can dissent from a half-mile away" totally renders dissent ineffective, as was seen in anti-war protesters, at the tiny number of dubya's public appearances, being restricted to a tiny patch of fenced in property 100s of yards away.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's a first amendment issue in both to be sure, but the similarities pretty much stop there. It's not a very good analogy, b_d.

I'm not even sure I'd characterize that as an issue. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette makes it cons utionally impermissible (via the Free Speech Clause) for the State to compel anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- if it can't be done in public schools, I don't think it can be done in a state courtroom. While the recent Newdow decision functionally rejected the argument that the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause, Barnette remains the law of the land -- and rightfully so, I think -- in terms of compulsory flag salutes and recitations of the Pledge.

As an aside, Justice Jackson's majority opinion in Barnette also happens to include two of my favorite legal statements about constructions of the First Amendment.

Speaking to the non-majoritarian structure of the Bill of Rights, Justice Jackson observed:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

and he also recognized that:

"If there is any fixed star in our cons utional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any cir stances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

[Spurminator]

If news cameras are going to continue to flock to these assholes, there's not really ANY distance they can set up from a funeral and not be some kind of disturbance.

There's no reason every protest they put on should be on television. We don't do news stories on every website that's set up with inflammatory and provocative views on sexuality and soldiers, so why are these idiots given air time?

[Parker2112]

IIRC, Gregory vs. Chicago basically said that protestors who are acting within their rights are not responsible for the reactions of the bystanders.

And you dont think that decision is distinguishable, where we are talking about the reactions of [grieving families vs normal bystanders]?

I think it most definitely is.

If the court cant see fit to shelter families in mourning from picketers, I'd say the whole thing is going to in a handbasket. Those protections are fundamental to protecting society IMO. If we cant grieve in peace, then the 1st amendment freedoms can definitely be said to have overrun those fundamental rights of other citizens.

[Parker2112]

These kinds "you can dissent from a half-mile away" totally renders dissent ineffective, as was seen in anti-war protesters, at the tiny number of dubya's public appearances, being restricted to a tiny patch of fenced in property 100s of yards away.

I dont think they are dissenting the funeral. I dont think their presence at the funeral is critical to their message.

[Blake]

And you dont think that decision is distinguishable, where we are talking about the reactions of [grieving families vs normal bystanders]?

I think it most definitely is.

If the court cant see fit to shelter families in mourning from picketers, I'd say the whole thing is going to in a handbasket. Those protections are fundamental to protecting society IMO. If we cant grieve in peace, then the 1st amendment freedoms can definitely be said to have overrun those fundamental rights of other citizens.

It's not up to the court to shelter families in mourning from picketers.

If you are that upset about it, you should write your lawmakers and pe ion them to make tough laws regarding picketing within X amount of a funeral home.

[Spurminator]

Their presence near the funeral is critical to creating the kind of shock value that gets them national buzz.

[Parker2112]

It's not up to the court to shelter families in mourning from picketers.

Says who?

The courts shelter many groups at sensitive times. Women cannot be forced to disclose an abortion to a father...adopted kids cant force disclosure of records including the iden y of their parents without consent...attorneys cant be force to reveal confessions of a client...priests cant be forced to reveal them either...

all these situations are different, but they are also the same: they protect sensitive relationships and sensitive areas of interaction where people might be forced to undergo tremendous hardship at the hands of another...and all are codified in law.

[boutons_deux]

"shock value that gets them national buzz."

which is exactly why dubya's goons kept anti-war dissenters roped off 100s of yards away.

btw, transves e Julie Annie's NYPD travelled all over the country (all of America is "America's Mayor" 's jurisdiction?) scouting groups that might protest the 2004 Repug Convention in NYC.

[Parker2112]

Their presence near the funeral is critical to creating the kind of shock value that gets them national buzz.

Its not up to courts to ensure they get this. It is enough that they can speak out in a public forum. Especially where they dont have a specific tie to the deceased. Their message is general, concerning national policies, not the specific actions of the soldier.

Im sure anti-war protesters would get tremendous national press from the Rose Garden at the White House, or from the front steps of the Pentagon.

[Blake]

Says who?

what exactly do you think the judicial system is supposed to do?

The courts shelter many groups at sensitive times. Women cannot be forced to disclose an abortion to a father...adopted kids cant force disclosure of records including the iden y of their parents without consent...attorneys cant be force to reveal confessions of a client...priests cant be forced to reveal them either...

all these situations are different, but they are also the same: they protect sensitive relationships and sensitive areas of interaction where people might be forced to undergo tremendous hardship at the hands of another...and all are codified in law.

so you think the court makes the law.

they definitely end up setting precedents, but you are mistaken on the purpose of the court system.

[Parker2112]

"shock value that gets them national buzz."

which is exactly why dubya's goons kept anti-war dissenters roped off 100s of yards away.

btw, transves e Julie Annie's NYPD travelled all over the country (all of America is "America's Mayor" 's jurisdiction?) scouting groups that might protest the 2004 Repug Convention in NYC.

You got me: why transves e?

[Spurminator]

Its not up to courts to ensure they get this.

Oh I agree. It's up to us to demand our news outlets quit feeding them attention.

[Parker2112]

what exactly do you think the judicial system is supposed to do?



so you think the court makes the law.

they definitely end up setting precedents, but you are mistaken on the purpose of the court system.

They dont make law. But law cant be written comprehensively to include every potential scenario that it will be applied to.

eg a law against theft cant include a comprehensive list of items that are protected by its scope. And when someone who is carrying a loaned item gets jacked, its up to a judge to apply theft or not.

Judges have to apply the law, not make the law. There is an enormous difference in the two.

[MannyIsGod]

Seems like this is a problem with an easy legislative remedy. Governing bodies, most likely state or local, need to establish code or ordinance setting a further legal distance from funerals where protests can take place. Make it 2500 hundred feet from the property line from the premise the funeral is taking place. At a half mile away, no one should be disturbed and these clowns will just look like a bunch of random morons protesting nothing.

If the people at the funeral don't even notice them until they see it on TV I think they're far enough.

[vy65]

If I remember correctly, distance restrictions fall within the time/place/manner exception to restricting speech. These restrictions are upheld because they don't infringe on the content of speech so much as they regulate when/where the speech occurs.

Given the context (i.e. dead marine's funeral), I think you could argue that putting a severe distance restriction is tantamount to suppressing the speech altogether. It's ridiculous to have a protest in the middle of a city, for example, while the funeral being protested takes place a half-mile away. I dunno if it's a winner, but it's something to consider.

I don't think reception of the message or the speech's hostility has any legal consequence whatsoever. If it's not hate speech and if it doesn't cons ute incitement, I'm certain that the law does not care if people's feelings get hurt.

[Crookshanks]

If news cameras are going to continue to flock to these assholes, there's not really ANY distance they can set up from a funeral and not be some kind of disturbance.

There's no reason every protest they put on should be on television. We don't do news stories on every website that's set up with inflammatory and provocative views on sexuality and soldiers, so why are these idiots given air time?

ding, ding, ding... we have a winner! These revolting inbreds are doing this for the attention. If no attention had ever been given them, then I'd be willing to bet they'd have gone away a long time ago. So the media is complicit - and this brings up another question. Are some of these media people so anti-war that they secretly approve of these protests?

[Parker2112]

If I remember correctly, distance restrictions fall within the time/place/manner exception to restricting speech. These restrictions are upheld because they don't infringe on the content of speech so much as they regulate when/where the speech occurs.

Given the context (i.e. dead marine's funeral), I think you could argue that putting a severe distance restriction is tantamount to suppressing the speech altogether. It's ridiculous to have a protest in the middle of a city, for example, while the funeral being protested takes place a half-mile away. I dunno if it's a winner, but it's something to consider.

I don't think reception of the message or the speech's hostility has any legal consequence whatsoever. If it's not hate speech and if it doesn't cons ute incitement, I'm certain that the law does not care if people's feelings get hurt.

There are actually limits on time/place/manner reqts, for example: no excess discretion by the official signing the permits, and the regs must be very specific on the standards of what is prohibited, so as not to chill speech or affect too broad of a range of speech (ambiguous permit requirements). However for the most part, the govt has a very wide la utde here that is almost never overturned.

And as for supression, I think you might say that this ='s supression IF they were actually demonstrating against the soldier or his acts, but here, where they are actually demonstrating something much broader ( sexuality in the US?), I wouldnt think the funeral would be necessary to make their point.

The correlation between sexual behavior and dead soldiers is very attenuated, and only exists if you buy the group's groups strained religious logic. The connection between the funeral and the message is just as distant. So I think you can easily say they dont need the funeral backdrop to spread the message effectively.

[Spurminator]

So the media is complicit - and this brings up another question. Are some of these media people so anti-war that they secretly approve of these protests?

Given that a significant amount of airtime is given to them by Fox News, I'm guessing no.

This is about stirring up emotions which is good for ratings and page views.

[Parker2112]

ding, ding, ding... we have a winner! These revolting inbreds are doing this for the attention. If no attention had ever been given them, then I'd be willing to bet they'd have gone away a long time ago. So the media is complicit - and this brings up another question. Are some of these media people so anti-war that they secretly approve of these protests?

by your logic the viewer is complicit too...just sayin'...

[Drachen]

ding, ding, ding... we have a winner! These revolting inbreds are doing this for the attention. If no attention had ever been given them, then I'd be willing to bet they'd have gone away a long time ago. So the media is complicit - and this brings up another question. Are some of these media people so anti-war that they secretly approve of these protests?

They are not anti-war protests!

[Parker2112]

Given that a significant amount of airtime is given to them by Fox News, I'm guessing no.

This is about stirring up emotions which is good for ratings and page views.

Its also about keeping the public's attention off the real issues, such as the money that is being funneled into the pockets of govt officials to keep control away from the citizenry.

There is a science to controlling the masses, and giving these guys airtime appeals to folks on such a polarizing level it distracts them completely, while those in control remain in control.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll make sure to drop the N bomb from a block away and hold a sign up about bringing back slavery from a comfortable, legal distance if I ever need to denigrate someone in the future, then.

Assuming you got the requisite paperwork, I'm pretty sure you could.

I was in New Orleans, on Bourbon Street, a few days before Hurricane Gustav hit. (It was a friend's last weekend in town, wanted to celebrate before he left for Korea.)

On a few street corners were people holding up signs saying that God is punishing New Orleans for gay people living in the city. You don't think I wanted to punch a few of them?

There are always a few there at Mardi Gras time too, calling out sinners and praising Jesus.

[Crookshanks]

They are not anti-war protests!

Their message might not be specifically against the war, but why do they only protest at MILITARY funerals? Is God only punishing the military members by letting them get killed? What about Policemen and Firemen - if their God is so against sexuality, why is it only the military people that are punished?

[LnGrrrR]

If I remember correctly, distance restrictions fall within the time/place/manner exception to restricting speech. These restrictions are upheld because they don't infringe on the content of speech so much as they regulate when/where the speech occurs.

Given the context (i.e. dead marine's funeral), I think you could argue that putting a severe distance restriction is tantamount to suppressing the speech altogether. It's ridiculous to have a protest in the middle of a city, for example, while the funeral being protested takes place a half-mile away. I dunno if it's a winner, but it's something to consider.

I don't think reception of the message or the speech's hostility has any legal consequence whatsoever. If it's not hate speech and if it doesn't cons ute incitement, I'm certain that the law does not care if people's feelings get hurt.

That's pretty much how I come in on it. I agree with the second paragraph as well.