SERVE Act

[PokerGuy]

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.

What exactly do you consider "harassment", and how is it defined differently in this context than free speech? They have a viewpoint (no matter how stupid), and they want to shout about it on public property. That seems like protected free speech to me, and apparently the courts at all levels agree.

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

If they come onto private property, yes. There are laws dealing with that. As long as they are on public property and they peacefully protest, no matter how much you dislike what they have to say, it's free speech and protected specifically by the constitution.

 

[zsdersw]

The concept of "freedom of speech" is not purposed for protecting popular opinion, but for ensuring the right to have and express unpopular opinions.

 

[PokerGuy]

The concept of "freedom of speech" is not purposed for protecting popular opinion, but for ensuring the right to have and express unpopular opinions.

It probably doesn't happen very often, but we're in complete agreement :thumbsup:

I wouldn't shed a tear if some grieving relative went over the edge and took it out on those hateful WBC people, but it makes no sense to twist our constitutional principles into a pretzel trying to find a way to no longer protect their freedom of speech because it's universally reviled.

 

[zsdersw]

Indeed... I'm sure it doesn't and won't happen often.

When did we as a society become so immature; sacrificing freedoms in the long-term to alleviate our anger in the short-term?

When did our opinions about matters of personal aesthetic, religious, sexual, and cultural preferences become so feeble that we feel the need to see them enshrined in laws and the constitution?

When did we decide that the only or best way to improve our society and social discourse is through the full force and credit of government?

When did we start letting the differing opinions of others lead to deeper insecurity in ourselves?

I don't know when, but I do know these things should never have happened.

 

[jonks]

When did we as a society become so immature; sacrificing freedoms in the long-term to alleviate our anger in the short-term?

When did our opinions about matters of personal aesthetic, religious, sexual, and cultural preferences become so feeble that we feel the need to see them enshrined in laws and the constitution?

When did we decide that the only or best way to improve our society and social discourse is through the full force and credit of government?

When did we start letting the differing opinions of others lead to deeper insecurity in ourselves?

I don't see the need to be so melodramatic about this. Freedoms aren't being destroyed. There is a balance of liberties at issue, as there almost always is. Being able to go to your loved one's funeral without someone standing 100 yards away laughing and yelling "good riddance!" is balanced against that jerk's free speech rights. Shifting the balance one way or the other isn't destroying anything, but clearly both person's can't be granted the fullest extention of their desires; the funeral goer would like absolute peace and the protestor would dance on the grave if allowed. Time and place restrictions have been found constitutional and exist for a number of speech activities when balanced against the equally important freedom to be left alone.

I am not a first amendment absolutist, but I do lean extremely heavily in defending against untoward govt restrictions on speech. Pushing back the boundary between protestors and funerals a couple hundred yards does not offend my notion of constitutional protections.

Now, if any protest at all aimed at military funerals was banned regardless of location, that I'd be just as against.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't see the need to be so melodramatic about this. Freedoms aren't being destroyed. There is a balance of liberties at issue, as there almost always is. Being able to go to your loved one's funeral without someone standing 100 yards away laughing and yelling "good riddance!" is balanced against that jerk's free speech rights. Shifting the balance one way or the other isn't destroying anything, but clearly both person's can't be granted the fullest extention of their desires; the funeral goer would like absolute peace and the protestor would dance on the grave if allowed. Time and place restrictions have been found constitutional and exist for a number of speech activities when balanced against the equally important freedom to be left alone.

I am not a first amendment absolutist, but I do lean extremely heavily in defending against untoward govt restrictions on speech. Pushing back the boundary between protestors and funerals a couple hundred yards does not offend my notion of constitutional protections.

Now, if any protest at all aimed at military funerals was banned regardless of location, that I'd be just as against.

I wasn't referring exclusively to this example.

 

[irishScott]

What exactly do you consider "harassment", and how is it defined differently in this context than free speech? They have a viewpoint (no matter how stupid), and they want to shout about it on public property. That seems like protected free speech to me, and apparently the courts at all levels agree.

If they come onto private property, yes. There are laws dealing with that. As long as they are on public property and they peacefully protest, no matter how much you dislike what they have to say, it's free speech and protected specifically by the constitution.

Sorry if I prefer to deal with free speech based on common sense rather than property lines. By your logic no one could file a noise complaint if the source was off their property. And the courts' job is to enforce existing law. Given existing law allows this sort of behavior, of course they agree. They'd be legislating from the benh otherwise.

They're expressing their viewpoint by knowingly inflicting pain on grieving families. It amounts to verbal abuse and harassment, and such behavior is not considered free speech.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Why stop there? Let's make it illegal to demonstrate or protest at anyone's funeral.

 

[jonks]

Why stop there?

Because it appears a specific need arose that many felt required addressing and protests at regular funerals don't seem to have occurred in any numbers requiring any governmental intervention?

 

[Patranus]

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.

They have a constitutional right to petition government to demand a redress of grievances.

They have done that, their grievances were heard and no one cared.

A military funeral has no connection to a group of people peacefully assembling to demand a redress of grievances.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The concept of "freedom of speech" is not purposed for protecting popular opinion, but for ensuring the right to have and express unpopular opinions.

What you don't get is that it isn't their opinion that's offensive. Their opinion is so stupid as to be powerless.

Go on /b/. Try to get them to rage to "God hates fags." I guarantee it'll get you nothing.

THAT is |speech|. No leverage, just laying it out there. And THAT particular statement will be ignored.

Hell, I just did it. Two responses:

Oh my, how offensive!

It isn't their message, it's their method of delivery. And the First Amendment does NOT give carte blanche to employ any method of delivery. Otherwise Westboro would be easy to deal with: Interpretive dance... with loaded firearms.

 

[Nebor]

Someone literally should kill those people. I would applaud it. The last time we had one of these threads, we discussed how America had PCed past the days were we just killed bad people. And I mean bad people. It used to be we hung them high and let them swing.

 

[DominionSeraph]

LOL look at how offensive I am!
Totally trolled the /b/ronies!

Now where is da gubbermint? I can't say these things without their protection!

 

[bfdd]

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.

You ignore them because "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

I guess people forgot about that one when they were growing up.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You ignore them because "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

Then you won't mind me parking my car outside your house at 3AM. Because words coming out of three 12W6's pushed by 1100 watts of Fosgate... are just words.

 

[bfdd]

Then you won't mind me parking my car outside your house at 3AM. Because words coming out of three 12W6's pushed by 1100 watts of Fosgate... are just words.

Well, when you start raising the DB to a level that can cause physical damage to myself or my property, that's more than just words. People standing protesting outside of cemetaries might be a little sick, but they are just words. Ignore the fucks and move on.... or kill them. Taking away the rights of protest from anyone for any reason though is flat out un-American.

So be a fucking man and suck it up because it's part of the ugly that comes with freedom.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Well, when you start raising the DB to a level that can cause physical damage to myself or my property,

It'll just shake your house a little. (Unless you're on a slab)

People standing protesting outside of cemetaries might be a little sick,

Ain't that they're standing outside of cemeteries. If they were standing outside of random cemeteries with no relation to what was going on inside, nobody would care.
It's that they're targeting the people inside the cemeteries. They are attempting to give their meaningless words weight by causing pain through their actions -- weight because pain demands removal. There is no protection for that. The First Amendment says you may speak, it says nothing that you must be heard.
By proceeding in a manner that warrants a response by those targeted, it warrants a government response, because it has gone beyond speech.

Taking away the rights of protest from anyone for any reason though is flat out un-American.

Learn to cut things into their components.
"Protest" is a separate thing. Regulating additions to protest does not remove "protest."
I can't protest by blaring my stereo at 3AM in a residential neighborhood. Is that because of the "protest" part? No, you moron. It's because of the addition of "douchebaggery." THAT is regulated.
Not being able to be a douchebag while you protest does not take away your right to protest.

bfdd: "I wanna take this bomb with me when I fly."
TSA: "Not allowed."
bfdd: "But, but... that means that nobody can fly!"

Riiight... because you can't perform the action, "to fly," without also performing, "to carry a bomb."

Don't get caught in natural thinking. Break things out before you start work to avoid modifying mush with mush.

 

[Nebor]

So be a fucking man and suck it up because it's part of the ugly that comes with freedom.

Things have gone too far, and we've outgrown freedom. Time for something else. Something with more control.

 

[zsdersw]

What you don't get is that it isn't their opinion that's offensive. Their opinion is so stupid as to be powerless.

Go on /b/. Try to get them to rage to "God hates fags." I guarantee it'll get you nothing.

THAT is |speech|. No leverage, just laying it out there. And THAT particular statement will be ignored.

Hell, I just did it. Two responses:

Oh my, how offensive!

It isn't their message, it's their method of delivery. And the First Amendment does NOT give carte blanche to employ any method of delivery. Otherwise Westboro would be easy to deal with: Interpretive dance... with loaded firearms.

Their method of delivery is to stand on public property and shout to try to draw attention to themselves... who cares? That sort of thing happens elsewhere with other people, yet those other people don't draw the same kind of overreaction that Westboro does. Why? Because to the people who overreact Westboro's opinion is offensive, too... not just their delivery method.

Toddlers and very young children often cry for no other reason than to get attention. The solution? Let them cry..

 

[zsdersw]

Things have gone too far, and we've outgrown freedom. Time for something else. Something with more control.

I certainly haven't. Anyone who wants to force more control on everyone can shove it up their ass.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Their method of delivery is to stand on public property and shout to try to draw attention to themselves...

...in such a way as to disrupt military funerals.

L2analyze

 

[DominionSeraph]

Anyone who wants to force more control on everyone can shove it up their ass.

This does not protect the minority from the majority, it protects the majority from a minority who are abusing a minority-protection law to be psychopathic.
The regulation of psychopaths is necessary.

 

[zsdersw]

...in such a way as to disrupt military funerals.

L2analyze

Military funerals are no more special in these matters than any other event.

 

[zsdersw]

This does not protect the minority from the majority, it protects the majority from a minority who are abusing a minority-protection law to be psychopathic.
The regulation of psychopaths is necessary.

His comment was more general than Westboro/military funerals.. and so was mine.

 

[jonks]

You ignore them because "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

That's cuz I've never used the Cruciatus Curse on you mofo.