As I noted earlier, there's some credence to the idea that the WBC protestors are using "offensive speech", or at least, that was the reason behind the Fallen Heroes act ("fighting words").
Given that they received a permit from the city, that would seem to counter the idea that they are creating a disruption, since they were allowed to be there in the first place.
The difference in venue between the doctor's house and the funeral area is an interesting issue. Technically, the doctor shouldn't have to move from his house. But then again, what use moving the funeral date/time, when the protestors will then reschedule their protest to coincide? I think it's very likely that the funeral-goers could be considered a 'captive audience', as it were.
WH, to answer your question about inciting violence, I would say that the bill signed by Congress in fact DOES state/reason that disturbing a funeral, which is a heavy emotional event, IS likely to cause violence.
I agree that the First Amendment is there to protect idiots who want to shout the most annoying things possible. However, in a real world sense, there are certainly limits to freedom of speech on public areas, as pointed out before.
So, even though I think these hate-mongers SHOULD be allowed to spew thier intolerance, I think it's not as cut-and-dry that they ARE allowed to. Getting a permit, I think, is the only thing saving them.
The law may say so, but what did the police supervising the protest think?WH, to answer your question about inciting violence, I would say that the bill signed by Congress in fact DOES state/reason that disturbing a funeral, which is a heavy emotional event, IS likely to cause violence.
Oh, I get your point. I'm just going by what the "Fallen Heroes" act says. Let's hypothetically say the protest occurred before a funeral at a military cemetary; it would then seem to be illegal. (Now, whether the fault would be on the WBC or the permit-issuers, I can't say.)
Anyways, even though the police may not think it was likely to incite violence, the law would seemingly state that their presence ipso facto is likely to cause violence.
Again, I'm not sure if that law would hold up under court. But I think there's a possibility it could. Look at stalking laws, for instance. Taken by itself, I don't think there's a law outlawing 'following' someone. Nor is there a law against calling someone. But when combined, and repeated, it can be considered illegal. Sort of an "emergent properties" theory. (It's the same way I feel about enhanced interrogation... tactics that may be alright on their own multiply their effectiveness greatly when used together.)
So, given the subject matter of the protests, along with the timing, I wouldn't necessarily state that what they're doing is legal without a doubt. I believe it is, but I think the possibility of their actions being illegal can't be discounted out of hand.
What does that matter? The police are not responsible with knowing every law. Also they might not interpret the language as excessive. Or maybe they didn't want to write paperwork for something like that. Maybe they have the insane notion that that kind of thing is what our first amendment guarantees.
100 percent agreed. It's a shame people watch a few idiot tv shows and think the bill of rights were written by the ACLU.
Also this is a form of harassment, which is not guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
duly noted.
The court ruled that the people at the funeral were not disturbed.
The failure to comprehend this part by some posters at this point in the thread is starting to reach moderate to high entertainment levels.
"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."
"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."
what did the language on the signs say?
how was the non- head punished here?
I guess the court had the same kind of insane notion.
That's an optical dulusion.
I think they need to make a law that says if gots like these picket a soldier's funeral, the family has a God given right to shoot them in the face.
A bit harsh, but it wouldn't bother me.I think they need to make a law that says if gots like these picket a soldier's funeral, the family has a God given right to shoot them in the face.
Blake, I think this is the interesting part.
But again, if this were hypothetically at a military cemetery, it would seem that their presence would automatically satisfy the burden required for the Fallen Heroes Act. Do you agree?"The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."
I think what you fail to realize is I disagree with this ruling. Thank you for reposting it over and over assuming I cannot comprehend this sentence and the reasoning of the "judge""The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service," the circuit court opinion said. "Although reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of the Phelps' protest, this conduct simply does not satisfy the heavy burden required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law."
Or they have to serve 3 years.I think they need to make a law that says if gots like these picket a soldier's funeral, the family has a God given right to shoot them in the face.
I find it funny how you have no problem in applying a rather novel interpretation of the first amendment in order to basically restrict it, but you won't accept any interpretation of the second amendment that would restrict it in any way, shape or form. To each his own, I guess.
But yeah, I think this is something that Congress should get their hands on. With the SC precedent in place, there's no reason they could not expand the other law.
how far away were these picketers from the entrance of this cemetery?
Last edited by Blake; 04-02-2010 at 02:15 PM.
you also disagree with the law enforcement officials that were there on the scene.
You are assuming that you are smarter than the "judge" and the law enforcement officials. What is your background or field of expertise that makes you smarter than them?
this butthurt is at a severe red level.
Those WBC idiots are going to get themselves killed by vigilantes one day. When the law fails to protect society, people take it into their own hands. It doesn't matter what the law says or should be or is interpreted. Fact is, people only get pushed so far before they enact their own justice.
I have no simple solution outside censorship. Basically:
1. Criminalize them as obscene (censorship)
2. Criminalize them as hate speech (censorship)
3. Prohibit protests within x feet of any cemetery (restriction)
The last solution is the best. It does not deny the right to assemble (issue a permit somewhere else) and the actual act being considered offensive is universal.
Regardless of what the law says, the law is failing society in this case and these guys are going to get gunned down in a drive-by one day. I won't blink an eye if it happened and I wouldn't care if a jury found the hit-man innocent. I wouldn't be the first time that both of those things happened (vigilante found innocent on principal) when society failed
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
