Illinois law proposed to ban funeral protests

[alchemize]

Funeral protest ban is pushed

If you contrast this law with other laws - "zones" at political events, "zones" around abortion clinics, it brings up many questions on the constitutionality of the "restricted speech zone" law.

For the record, I think it is within the constitutional rights to restrict free speech when it infrignes on the free speech of others. Purist libertarians would likely disagree. As would those who consider their speech being infringed.

 

[Cooler]

why are you protesting a dead person?

last time I check only if clear and present danger could free speech could be stoped.

 

[conjur]

I realize the article's title is mentioned in your post but it's not a ban as was discussed in your flamebait thread.

It's pushing the protestors (whose hate and anger at the military and its policies are misdirected at innocent, fallen soldiers) a few hundred feet back. Hardly a ban.

These "protestors" aren't protesting. They are harrassing. There's a HUGE difference.

 

[Harvey]

As I posted in your previous thread on this, you may want to evaluate a few of the finer points in the article in your link beforelaunching all the missiles.

Members of the church, led by Rev. Fred Phelps, who is not related to Brandon Phelps, have picketed dozens of funerals for soldiers killed overseas.

Followers of the church, mostly family members of Fred Phelps, say the killings of American soldiers by improvised explosive devices are a manifestation of God's wrath over homosexuality in the United States.

Church members have picketed at least six funerals for Illinois soldiers, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said Tuesday.

The proposed Let Them Rest in Peace Act in Illinois would keep protesters 300 feet away from funerals and memorial services for 30 minutes before and after the ceremony.

The fact that this particular group of protesters are obviously from the nutcase fringe. That's not a reason to ban their freedom of speech, but the proposed legislation doesn't do that.

The proposed Let Them Rest in Peace Act in Illinois would keep protesters 300 feet away from funerals and memorial services for 30 minutes before and after the ceremony.

To me, that sounds like it's just giving those mourners a very reasonable thirty minute comfort zone to deal with their loss. Would you deny that to the family of any fallen U.S. soldier?

There's also the question if whether the intrusion of such "protesters" on such a personal gathering is an unwarranted attack on the family's freedom of expression of their grief.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Obviously this law is almost solely intended to deal with the God Hates Fags crowd, whose most recent notoriety came when they protested at the funerals of the WV miners.

As far as I'm concerned, there is not an unlimited right for "protesters" to disrupt a private funeral, and I am not troubled by a law preventing them from getting too close to the funeral itself. It's actually in the interest of public safety (like prohibiting yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater), in that their "protests" are likely to (and probably largely intended to) lead to violent confrontation. I know if I were mourning my child who had died in combat, I would be hard pressed not to literally kill these ghouls for gloating about it and mocking his or her memory. They are, for lack of a better phrase, evil bastards, and a perfect illustration of the accuracy of the Yeats quote in my sig.

The proposed law is not a ban, it's a geographical limitation on certain types of speech. They can still protest as loudly and offensively as they want - they just can't do so in the immediate vicinity of the funeral.

 

[piasabird]

They already have a hole dug, shoot them and throw them in it.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Obviously this law is almost solely intended to deal with the God Hates Fags crowd, whose most recent notoriety came when they protested at the funerals of the WV miners.

As far as I'm concerned, there is not an unlimited right for "protesters" to disrupt a private funeral, and I am not troubled by a law preventing them from getting too close to the funeral itself. It's actually in the interest of public safety (like prohibiting yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater), in that their "protests" are likely to (and probably largely intended to) lead to violent confrontation. I know if I were mourning my child who had died in combat, I would be hard pressed not to literally kill these ghouls for gloating about it and mocking his or her memory. They are, for lack of a better phrase, evil bastards, and a perfect illustration of the accuracy of the Yeats quote in my sig.

The proposed law is not a ban, it's a geographical limitation on certain types of speech. They can still protest as loudly and offensively as they want - they just can't do so in the immediate vicinity of the funeral.

that Westboro Baptist Church kinda cracks me up. they also have god hates america, god hates sweden, lol. they're as crazy as they come, but they do usually protest peacefully, they don't get into fights. they go to lots of churches too, and most churches know beforehand, there is usually a police presence. they tell their members not to engage them at all. the WBC protest numbers are usually less than a dozen.

 

[Zebo]

1st -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

+

14th - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Genx87]

Like I said in the other thread.

I think Fred Phelps is probably a homo and hates himself for it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Zebo
1st -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

+

14th - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I don't agree. Supreme Court jurisprudence has always allowed for reasonable restrictions on the time and place of free speech (otherwise, no law could prevent a person from making constant harassing and/or threatening phone calls to another person, for example). In this instance, the WBC people would not, under the proposed law, be preventing from protesting, they would just be prohibited from coming within 300 feet of an ongoing funeral. I do not see this as an unduly burdensome restriction.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Zebo
1st -Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

+

14th - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I don't agree. Supreme Court jurisprudence has always allowed for reasonable restrictions on the time and place of free speech (otherwise, no law could prevent a person from making constant harassing and/or threatening phone calls to another person, for example). In this instance, the WBC people would not, under the proposed law, be preventing from protesting, they would just be prohibited from coming within 300 feet of an ongoing funeral. I do not see this as an unduly burdensome restriction.

What you call "reasonable restrictions" has been appleied to every right we have only to be left with words that don't mean much in the original post. IMO.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Zebo

What you call "reasonable restrictions" has been appleied to every right we have only to be left with words that don't mean much in the original post. IMO.

I simply don't agree, and I am a very strong free-speech advocate. I don't see that creating a 300-foot harassment-free zone around a funeral is a burdensome restriction on free speech. I do not advocate making the speech itself illegal. I just think this is a legitimate restriction, with a legitimate public-policy justification.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Zebo

What you call "reasonable restrictions" has been appleied to every right we have only to be left with words that don't mean much in the original post. IMO.

I simply don't agree, and I am a very strong free-speech advocate. I don't see that creating a 300-foot harassment-free zone around a funeral is a burdensome restriction on free speech. I do not advocate making the speech itself illegal. I just think this is a legitimate restriction, with a legitimate public-policy justification.

I'm sure the president feels the same about sneek and peek gags, free-speech zones and the like. I look at them as well this legislation like this as yet another errosion of our const rights - this time from left.

America was founded as a great experiment in liberty and in freedom not freedom with buts and ifs caveats thrown in all over the place and progessivly, over time, restricting those rights. I looked and never saw these buts and ifs they sound absolute almost god given to me. Or at least needing another amendment to overrule the previous text. Like it or not, following the founders wisdom we should allow these jackels to make fools of themselves. Like the KKK like farakhan or anyone else. IMO.

 

[LumbergTech]

I dont really see the need for this law..im sure that those who protest funerals in an obnoxious way tend to break the law during such activity..such as making threatning statements etc

 

[Agrooreo]

I think its a great idea and may save some peoples live!! My brother is a homosexual combat medic who just got home from Afghanstan and leaves for Iraq in July. God forbid something happen to him, but if it were to and these people showed up I can gurantuee that some of them would be leaving in ambulances. Thats just the way my family is and with 13 of us kids around who all love him dearly and 6 uncles who are all violent to begin with it would turn into a bad situation for any protesters who thought this might be a good idea.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Zebo

What you call "reasonable restrictions" has been appleied to every right we have only to be left with words that don't mean much in the original post. IMO.

I simply don't agree, and I am a very strong free-speech advocate. I don't see that creating a 300-foot harassment-free zone around a funeral is a burdensome restriction on free speech. I do not advocate making the speech itself illegal. I just think this is a legitimate restriction, with a legitimate public-policy justification.

I'm sure the president feels the same about sneek and peek gags, free-speech zones and the like. I look at them as well this legislation like this as yet another errosion of our const rights - this time from left.

America was founded as a great experiment in liberty and in freedom not freedom with buts and ifs caveats thrown in all over the place and progessivly, over time, restricting those rights. I looked and never saw these buts and ifs they sound absolute almost god given to me. Or at least needing another amendment to overrule the previous text. Like it or not, following the founders wisdom we should allow these jackels to make fools of themselves. Like the KKK like farakhan or anyone else. IMO.

I think it would be cool if someone went through the SS guys and wrested the microphone out of Bush's hands and started ranting. It is his Constitutional right after all, if free speech is free. Someone can come in to where you work, and you can't evict them if they start talking, right?

I find it hard to believe that the intent ff the Constitution was to allow for absolute power to those who want to make a point. If that were true, Congress couldn't function, and it was clearly intended to do so.

No these people can say what they want, but not in peoples faces. There are competing concerns here.