SERVE Act

[zsdersw]

http://thecatskillchronicle.com/201...act-to-protect-sanctity-of-military-funerals/

WASHINGTON, DC (April 14, 2011) – U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today joined with a bipartisan coalition of Senators to announce the introduction of a bill to protect military funerals from disruption by outside groups.

The bipartisan legislation would amend existing federal laws to help prevent disruptions at military funerals.

The Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans, or “SERVE” Act (S.815), defines the time and place for protests at funerals, and it provides clear remedies and increased penalties when conduct at military funeral services is not protected by the First Amendment.

Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) introduced the measure with Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD), Dan Coats (R-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).

“Our men and women in uniform bravely put everything on the line for our country. It is our duty to provide service members and their families with the support they need while deployed overseas and after they have returned home,” said Senator Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “This common sense legislation will ensure our heroes are buried with the honor and dignity they deserve.”

Specifically, the SERVE Act would increase the quiet time before and after military funeral services from 60 minutes to 120 minutes; increase from 150 feet to 300 feet the buffer around a military funeral service and increase from 300 feet to 500 feet the buffer around access routes to a funeral service area; and increase civil penalties on violators.

The military support groups and organizations supporting the SERVE Act include the Gold Star Wives of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Marine Corps League, the Military Officers Association of America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the Non Commissioned Officers Association, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc: “Several of our members have been forced to endure these unseemly, irreverent protests at the funerals of their beloved fallen spouse. Losing a beloved husband or wife is traumatic enough without also having to endure these protestors and their nasty signs and obnoxious behavior. We fully support the proposed Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act and we are grateful that you have proposed this legislation.”

Military Order of the Purple Heart: "The Military Order of the Purple Heart totally agrees with Senator Snowe that the families of our military should only have to deal with the burial of their fallen loved one and not with protestors who would intrude upon this most solemn occasion."

Non Commissioned Officers Association: “The disruption and protest rallies targeting military funerals dishonors the military service of those whose uniformed service has guaranteed the freedoms enjoyed by all citizens. The proposed legislation further correctly asserts that such demonstrations negatively impact the recruitment of people by the Armed Forces and militia employed in service to the United States. The Non Commissioned Officers Association strongly supports your legislation that will ensure the privacy and dignity of military funerals.”

Veterans of Foreign Wars: “…the VFW fully supports legislative and community efforts to ensure the right to free speech does not trump a family’s right to mourn in private. Those who would use the First Amendment as both a shield and a sword need to have limits on such abuse. Thank you, on behalf of all 2.1 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our Auxiliaries, for stepping forward and leading the charge.”

Background: The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Snyder v Phelps involving the Snyder family and the Westboro Baptist Church underscored the need for more definitive language in federal law guiding when and where disruptions at military funerals can take place, while still respecting the ability of a family to lay a lost loved one to rest.

Seems to be entirely unnecessary, to me. It takes at least two people for a situation to be offensive; one person to offend, and another to be offended. If everyone just denied the offenders their goal, the problem will go away.

 

[Anarchist420]

That shit's unconstitutional. Even the Constitution protects against it.

 

[thraashman]

I think it'd be easier for the government to just accidentally drone strike the Westboro Baptist Church. That's pretty much who this is aimed at.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Westboro would fizzle out if people would stop feeding those trolls and let them waste their money driving to funerals to protest.

Checkout this report, "Inside Westboro Baptist Church"
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2147852

Basically, it is one family of lawyers that bait people into violating their right to assemble / freedom of speech and then they slap lawsuits on them and pocket the $$$.

 

[PokerGuy]

I agree with zsdersw. Westboro idiots are repugnant, but these are legal gyrations to find some way to do what the constitution says you can't (restrict their free expression). It makes no sense to start adapting your core values to every little outlier group that does something we don't like.

 

[JS80]

Stupid law is stupid.

 

[Nebor]

This seems unconstitutional. Someone (not the government) should just kill everyone affiliated with the Westboro Baptist Church. I'm sure the investigation wouldn't be too thorough. No one would miss them.

 

[Sinsear]

God hates fags people law?

 

[zsdersw]

Someone (not the government) should just kill everyone affiliated with the Westboro Baptist Church.

Where's Tony Soprano when you need him...

 

[werepossum]

I think it'd be easier for the government to just accidentally drone strike the Westboro Baptist Church. That's pretty much who this is aimed at.

Westboro would fizzle out if people would stop feeding those trolls and let them waste their money driving to funerals to protest.

Checkout this report, "Inside Westboro Baptist Church"
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2147852

Basically, it is one family of lawyers that bait people into violating their right to assemble / freedom of speech and then they slap lawsuits on them and pocket the $$$.

I like both of these. If the Westboro Baptist Church gets taken out during "pray against you" time and the government tells me that Hellfire (how appropriate!) was aimed at a terrorist outside of Jalalabad, I promise to ask no embarrassing questions about range and encoded laser designation. It also seems to me that a strategic disinformation campaign of advertising false military funerals might come in handy. Imagine them driving (okay, flying their broomsticks) to North Dakota only to learn there's not really a funeral.

 

[Fern]

I don't think it's at all clear cut that this would be unconstitutional.

You can reasonably limit rights. It's obvious from the quoted article in the OP that limitations already exist. They are just expanding them. The SCOTUS may very well find that the newer expanded limits are reasonable.

Fern

 

[kage69]

I agree with Fern, we provide exemptions given just cause. If the GOP can set up 'free speech zones' for something relatively mundane like rallies, then the freedom of speech can be tweaked for a special, limited scope occasion in honor of those who gave their lives to protect all of our freedoms. My faith in the SCOTUS is at an all time low thanks to the likes of Alito and Thomas, but I would wager the court would allow this.

Oh and Olympia Snowe is awesome btw, one of the last bastions of integrity and competence in the GOP.

 

[irishScott]

I agree with zsdersw. Westboro idiots are repugnant, but these are legal gyrations to find some way to do what the constitution says you can't (restrict their free expression). It makes no sense to start adapting your core values to every little outlier group that does something we don't like.

And if I verbally harassed you would that be considered free speech? What the WBC is doing in a lot of cases is harassment masquerading as a protest.

And IMO funerals, military or otherwise, should be free from disturbance. It's a violation of privacy to interfere, plain and simple.

 

[dmcowen674]

It's a violation of privacy to interfere, plain and simple.

Privacy is only granted to Corporations not individuals

 

[Doppel]

All you "just ignore them and they'll go away" are parroting playground ideal-world ways of dealing with a kid who keeps calling you a name, not a group of people protesting at a funeral. None of you can pretend for a second that if you were at a funeral for your brother and these people were celebrating it at the entrance to the cemetery you'd just ignore them.

I'm surprised they cannot be charged under existing laws like yelling fire in theater or inciting a riot or something.

What you all must absolutely admit is that these guys will always get enough attention to stay relevant, even if it's a tiny portion of the population. Case in point this thread: many people saying "ignore them" and yet paying attention to them by proxy. They are like internet trolls; impossible to completely ignore even if you want to. Kind of like the guy who posted just before me.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't see why this should only apply to military funerals. Either it has to be an exception for all funerals or none of them.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If everyone just denied the offenders their goal, the problem will go away.

Enshrining retreat before the offender denies you the freedom to have interceptable goals.
Why should the social be defined by the extents the antisocial will go to?

That shit's unconstitutional. Even the Constitution protects against it.

Try entering a federal courthouse to hand out M16A1's lithographed to graphically advertise your child porn collection.
And I gather that shooting at people is a great way to grab their attention. That people find it "offensive" must be beside the point because it serves speech, amiright?

 

[mcmilljb]

Honestly, I am trying to figure out how they skirt around harassment laws and the first amendment. They're not there to protest. They are there to harass the families to incite violence. It just so happens they want the violence against themselves. Also the first amendment does not allow you to harass people intentionally. That is exactly what these people want. If I can't shout "fire" in a building, then these scumbags can't go yelling at people trying to incite violence for their own personal gain.

There are limits and these people are crossing it intentionally. All speech is not protected, and I wish some people would teach them some lessons. People should protest outside their church, homes and business until they give up or lose a few rounds in court.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://thecatskillchronicle.com/201...act-to-protect-sanctity-of-military-funerals/



Seems to be entirely unnecessary, to me. It takes at least two people for a situation to be offensive; one person to offend, and another to be offended. If everyone just denied the offenders their goal, the problem will go away.

I don't see how you can choose not to be offended if some nutjobs are yelling and screaming about how god hates fags at your loved one's funeral.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't see how you can choose not to be offended if some nutjobs are yelling and screaming about how god hates fags at your loved one's funeral.

It's called self-control. I know it's a foreign concept for many more people than it should be these days, but really.. it's not that difficult.

Enshrining retreat before the offender denies you the freedom to have interceptable goals. Why should the social be defined by the extents the antisocial will go to?

The best move in any situation is the one that provides the most gain at the least cost. Focusing on the event you're participating in while ignoring the people who interfere allows us to fully experience the event and costs nothing.

I realize the attention span of the average American is getting shorter and shorter, but that is not a condition to be catered to like a natural handicap.. it is to be fought like an unwanted habit.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The best move in any situation is the one that provides the most gain at the least cost. Focusing on the event you're participating in while ignoring the people who interfere allows us to fully experience the event and costs nothing.

By that logic, murder should be legal. It costs the family nothing to pretend their loved one never existed, they gain the benefit of immediately being able to return to their lives, and it saves the cost of investigation, trial, and incarceration.

The victim's already dead. Being a bitch about it isn't gonna change anything.


Methinks you don't quite understand humans. We do things not only for the moment and ourselves, but also for the future and for others (with the hope that they'll be returning the favor and do for us.)
A very distressing situation to which all signs point to being repeated, and even designed to have expanded to cause the highest degree of distress possible in which minimal consequences will be imposed, rather calls out for harsher consequences. Like, perhaps, shooting them one by one until the remainder come to the decision that perhaps they'd prefer playing a game that is more agreeable to the people who are about to take away their ability to be disagreeable.

The People are the Law. We reserve the right.

 

[zsdersw]

By that logic, murder should be legal. It costs the family nothing to pretend their loved one never existed, they gain the benefit of immediately being able to return to their lives, and it saves the cost of investigation, trial, and incarceration.

Not at all. Loved ones are loved ones for a reason... and ignoring that reason has a very high cost.

The victim's already dead. Being a bitch about it isn't gonna change anything.

Methinks you don't quite understand humans. We do things not only for the moment and ourselves, but also for the future and for others (with the hope that they'll be returning the favor and do for us.)
A very distressing situation to which all signs point to being repeated, and even designed to have expanded to cause the highest degree of distress possible in which minimal consequences will be imposed, rather calls out for harsher consequences. Like, perhaps, shooting them one by one until the remainder come to the decision that perhaps they'd prefer playing a game that is more agreeable to the people who are about to take away their ability to be disagreeable.

The People are the Law. We reserve the right.

I understand humans just fine... but grieving for the loss of a loved one and maintaining self-control are not mutually exclusive. One is not prevented by the other.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Not at all. Loved ones are loved ones for a reason... and ignoring that reason has a very high cost.

If the memory is sacred, how would ignoring those who conspire to insert themselves into that memory for the purpose of desecration cost nothing?

It is a private moment, and they are intruded upon with malice. To be able to casually ignore an intrusion indicates that they are in public mode -- protections allowing for agility are in place as though everything's normal and there's nothing particularly meaningful to them happening at the moment.

Anyway, the next time a Palestinian is killed by an Israeli soldier, why don't you go do this as they're carrying his body through the street:

I'm sure they'll find your argument about how they "just have ADD" to be quite thought provoking.

I understand humans just fine... but grieving for the loss of a loved one and maintaining self-control are not mutually exclusive. One is not prevented by the other.

One could be made to exhibit self-control in the face of dismemberment of a loved one if sufficient leverage could be found. The question is whether the government has a vested interest in applying that leverage on behalf of the person doing the dismembering.
As the government represents the People, and as the People seem to have a preference of not being dismembered/not being forced to watch the dismemberment of loved ones over freedom to dismember, I would say not.

And I do believe this case would align the same way. More people would wish to be left in peace than to have the freedom to maliciously intrude upon the peace of others.
You cannot protect both.

 

[zsdersw]

If the memory is sacred, how would ignoring those who conspire to insert themselves into that memory for the purpose of desecration cost nothing?

It is a private moment, and they are intruded upon with malice. To be able to casually ignore an intrusion indicates that they are in public mode -- protections allowing for agility are in place as though everything's normal and there's nothing particularly meaningful to them happening at the moment.

It's a matter of association and relevance. Outsiders, who are not in any way familiar to or associated with us, are not relevant or important. They can and should be ignored when it is more expedient and beneficial for us to do so.

Anyway, the next time a Palestinian is killed by an Israeli soldier, why don't you go do this as they're carrying his body through the street:

I'm sure they'll find your argument about how they "just have ADD" to be quite thought provoking.

Neither I nor anyone else in this country view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as synonymous with the Westboro people and their actions... or think that the actions/reactions of people in one part of the world to certain events and circumstances in any way justify or legitimize actions/reactions of other people in a different part of the world to entirely different events and circumstances.

One could be made to exhibit self-control in the face of dismemberment of a loved one if sufficient leverage could be found. The question is whether the government has a vested interest in applying that leverage on behalf of the person doing the dismembering.
As the government represents the People, and as the People seem to have a preference of not being dismembered/not being forced to watch the dismemberment of loved ones over freedom to dismember, I would say not.

And I do believe this case would align the same way. .

What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right.

More people would wish to be left in peace than to have the freedom to maliciously intrude upon the peace of others.
You cannot protect both

That's a strawman. That is not the choice that's being presented.

 

[zsdersw]

By the way.. if you're at all wondering.. I didn't shed a single tear when you put me on your ignore list a while back, DS. My exact reaction was a sarcastic "we'll always have Paris..".