Should people be able to protest a military funeral ??

[Doboji]

I dare say if it was my kids funeral that these nutbags showed up to protest, I'd put as many of them into the ground as I could...

 

[Amused]

The more I think about this statement, the more I don't agree with it. Freedom is a matter of degrees, and a balancing of interests. For example, here in the U.S., I am free to stage a rally for my new political party, the "Elect Me!" party. However, I am not free to do this on major city streets during rush hour.

You have a very simple break down in logic here. To hold the rally ON a street during rush hour is to impede the flow of traffic and violate the rights of others.

Yes, for all to have freedom, the freedom of one man must stop at the point it violates rights of another. That is a basic requirement for ALL men to be free. Were it not, only bullies would be free.

Limiting the movement of other citizens is violating their rights. Offending them or saying things that hurt their feelings do NOT violate their rights. The Phelps in NO WAY limit the freedom of others. They merely piss people off. You do NOT have a right to be free of outrage or offense. Period.

Freedom IS black and white. You either have it, or you do not.

 

[woolfe9999]

Question on your example, if I am in public screaming "all women are good for only one thing" which you say is protected but offensive, and I turn to a woman and say "like you, you are only good for one thing and i want to ___." Does the second part also enjoy protection as part of the broader statement? That seems to be how this case connects the two examples, the Westboro church obviously makes a broad statement about the society during their protests, but the case seems to rest on the fact that they also singled out this soldier during their protest.

Personally, I think the church should win. They are obviously making political and religious speech, and it is directed at society and our government. Even though it was partially directed at a private citizen, it was directed at him because of his service as a member of our military.

As I said, the Westboro case is in a grey area. I don't know exactly everything they say at these "protests." If, in addition to making general statements, they are pointing at the parents and saying disparaging things about their son, that decreases the liklihood that a First Amendment defense would apply here. In determining whether the First Amendment is a defense to a civil tort, courts employ a multi-factor analysis, not a mechanical formulation. Is the speech a matter of general public concern, or is it a matter of private concern? Was it delivered in a public or private setting? On public property or private property? Was the plaintiff a public figure or not? If the answer to all these questions is option a, it is an easy case. If the answer to all the questions is option b, then it is an easy case. It is where the answer to some of these questions is a and others b that it becomes a grey area.

To your specific question, if the speech is mixed public/private, the "public" comments would not be actionable. In other words, you'd have to prove the harm was caused by the private comments that were made. If the harm was caused by both, you'll either have no case or you'll have reduced damages. Also bear in mind that IIED requires "extreme and outrageous conduct." That means what it says. Crude come ons will not qualify, no matter how offended she is, unless you are in a work environment.

- wolf

 

[Mursilis]

You have a very simple break down in logic here. To hold the rally ON a street during rush hour is to impede the flow of traffic and violate the rights of others.

Yes, for all to have freedom, the freedom of one man must stop at the point it violates rights of another. That is a basic requirement for ALL men to be free. Were it not, only bullies would be free.

Limiting the movement of other citizens is violating their rights. Offending them or saying things that hurt their feelings do NOT violate their rights. The Phelps in NO WAY limit the freedom of others. They merely piss people off. You do NOT have a right to be free of outrage or offense. Period.

Freedom IS black and white. You either have it, or you do not.

Good rebuttal so far, but what exactly is "freedom"? So what about taxes? Do you still have freedom if you have to pay them?

 

[Carmen813]

Aren't funerals private? Shouldn't that basically end this discussion?

Frankly, I think the argument hat this is doing direct psychological harm to the parent is somewhat compelling. Civil rights do not give you the authority to harm others.

 

[Moonbeam]

Liberty extends as far as you aren't affecting anothers liberty which pretty much puts your analogy to bed. It's the old, your freedom stops at another man's nose or property. The church wasn't affecting the father's freedom or liberty, it may have been extremely offensive but in now way was it interfering with his freedom.

It interfered with his right to a dignified burial for his child. Insane swine slimed it no less than if they defaced his grave stone. These folk practice a violence of hate at the ancient mores of normal people because their bigoted hate for homosexuals. You don't hate homosexuals like we do and we will hate you and take from you the normal respect shown when you bury your children. This in nothing more or less than a hate crime intended to offend the most sacred moment most parents of a dead soldier can have. They wish to kill your sacred moment because you won't honor and bow down to their deeply sick mental illness.

But, oh my God, I'm responding to spidey07 who would naturally approve of their message. How silly of me.

 

[soulcougher73]

I say yes but i am a big believer in our freedom of speech and assembly. This is just one of the unfortunate side effects of allowing such a system. Got to take the good with the bad. As much as i dislike it i will fight for their right to do it.

 

[Carmen813]

Actually, in addressing Spidey's statement, I think you could argue that this groups actions have limited the parents' positive liberty. Essentially, this would be their right to mourn without being obstructed by this groups heterosexist beliefs.

You could also argue it impacts the parents' negative liberty because it restricted their ability to freely mourn the passing of their son. It's violating their zone of freedom to mourn without interference from others.

 

[Moonbeam]

You have a very simple break down in logic here. To hold the rally ON a street during rush hour is to impede the flow of traffic and violate the rights of others.

Yes, for all to have freedom, the freedom of one man must stop at the point it violates rights of another. That is a basic requirement for ALL men to be free. Were it not, only bullies would be free.

Limiting the movement of other citizens is violating their rights. Offending them or saying things that hurt their feelings do NOT violate their rights. The Phelps in NO WAY limit the freedom of others. They merely piss people off. You do NOT have a right to be free of outrage or offense. Period.

Freedom IS black and white. You either have it, or you do not.

Freedom is not black and white. With freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it properly. When you slime a parent's one moment in life to honor his or her dead child because you yourself are insane, that is not responsible and it then becomes the duty of those who ARE responsible to step in and stop you. Otherwise, the insane will ruin everybody's freedom because everybody will begin to hate freedom itself.

Freedom without responsibility is the enemy of freedom itself. This is exactly why bamacre who worships liberty to the point his belief that fanaticism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice is totally wrong. Fanaticism is not responsible and IS the enemy of liberty.

Freedom and responsibility are inextricably bound.

 

[Carmen813]

I say yes but i am a big believer in our freedom of speech and assembly. This is just one of the unfortunate side effects of allowing such a system. Got to take the good with the bad. As much as i dislike it i will fight for their right to do it.

The problem here is that these individuals are not merely protesting government. They would be within the bounds of freedom of speech to do so. Rather they are exploiting a private matter (a family funeral) in order to garner public attention. They also have directly attacked mourners through other media outlets.

 

[daishi5]

As I said, the Westboro case is in a grey area. I don't know exactly everything they say at these "protests." If, in addition to making general statements, they are pointing at the parents and saying disparaging things about their son, that decreases the liklihood that a First Amendment defense would apply here. In determining whether the First Amendment is a defense to a civil tort, courts employ a multi-factor analysis, not a mechanical formulation. Is the speech a matter of general public concern, or is it a matter of private concern? Was it delivered in a public or private setting? On public property or private property? Was the plaintiff a public figure or not? If the answer to all these questions is option a, it is an easy case. If the answer to all the questions is option b, then it is an easy case. It is where the answer to some of these questions is a and others b that it becomes a grey area.

To your specific question, if the speech is mixed public/private, the "public" comments would not be actionable. In other words, you'd have to prove the harm was caused by the private comments that were made. If the harm was caused by both, you'll either have no case or you'll have reduced damages. Also bear in mind that IIED requires "extreme and outrageous conduct." That means what it says. Crude come ons will not qualify, no matter how offended she is, unless you are in a work environment.

- wolf

Interesting. I think Westboro should win this, but I don't know much about their protests. I think it is obvious they are trying to make a political/religious statement about the country and the military at large.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Limiting the movement of other citizens is violating their rights. Offending them or saying things that hurt their feelings do NOT violate their rights. The Phelps in NO WAY limit the freedom of others. They merely piss people off. You do NOT have a right to be free of outrage or offense. Period.

I think the Phelps are doing more than just pissing people off.

I believe the Phelps have a 1st Amendment right to their unsavory speech, but there's more to it than just that. Their problem is that their speech alone wouldn't likely get them the publicity they seek. Nutjobs saying offensive stuff isn't all that rare or news worthy. So, the Phelps are purposefully disrupting funerals to bring them and their speech the publicity they seek. They are 'hijacking' other peoples' funeral for their own purpose. That, IMO, is the problem, I see it as 'stealing' in a sense. Stealing other peoples' funerals to use for their own purpose. Those military families have a right to a funeral, and the Phelps, IMO, have no right to usurp their funerals for the Phelps' publicity needs.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Nebor: As a soldier myself, I would simply say that I would gladly die for their right to protest my funeral.

M: That is a a wonderful way to see this. It is not, however, a universal opinion, and may not be shared by your parents. It is how parents who are trying to honor folk who fall in battle feel about it that is the issue here.

N: Once you start censoring things you don't like, things that are "offensive" or maybe "just not right," then we're no better than the backwards countries we invade in order to fix.

M: But none of those backward countries would be so stupid as to allow the desecration of the dead. They may be backward but not as backward as we are.

 

[thegimp03]

Sure, let them waste their time.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Personally, I think the church should win. They are obviously making political and religious speech, and it is directed at society and our government. Even though it was partially directed at a private citizen, it was directed at him because of his service as a member of our military.

It was directed at him to hurt his family, and through hurt to get them publicity. That is what takes it beyond the bounds.
Their message has nothing to do with the individual soldiers. You do not need to picket a funeral to say, "I believe the United States' policy towards gays leads God to kill American soldiers."

Speech is protected when communication is the goal. If hurt is tangential to that, tough luck.
But if hurt is the goal and speech is just the weapon, the 1st amendment is not a shield.

Speech is regulated all over the place when other goals are primary.
Corporations have 1st amendment protections, but they're not allowed to lie on SEC filings. The FTC Act bans deceiving consumers. Telephone solicitations are regulated. Billboards and signage are subject to code.

Libel and slander have already been posted.
There's also copyright.

Violating an NDA can get you sued.
Releasing classified information is a crime.
Same with violating a gag order.
Terroristic threats are illegal.
Incitement to riot.

A loud exhaust sends a message. Still regulated by the EPA.

And Disturbing the Peace is a catch-all for offensive noise.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Freedom IS black and white. You either have it, or you do not.

An unqualified "Freedom" is incoherent, because to not be bound by the law of noncontradiction doesn't preclude being bound by the law of noncontradiction.

And at that point things get confusing.

 

[DrPizza]

You do NOT have a right to be free of outrage or offense.

Agreed. But, you DO have the right not to be disrupted. Go into a public library and start protesting something. If your actions are disruptive, you'll be asked to leave. What they are doing at funerals is no less disruptive than people talking very loudly in a library. The government doesn't tell you that you can't talk loud, or that you can't express your opinions, but it does say that you can't do it disruptively in a library.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Agreed. But, you DO have the right not to be disrupted.

Mmmm... I don't think so.

Disruptive behavior is regulated, but that's not the same as a right to the absence.

It's like how double parking is an infraction, but nowhere does it say that you have the inalienable right to be free of double-parked cars. If someone double-parks they're violating traffic statutes, not your civil rights.

So it's actually an expression of the right to vote.

 

[iGas]

The folks @ Westboro Church who are doing this will be very shocked when they wake up in hell.

It would serve them right if people riots and pesters them when their love one die.

I'm against wars and aggressions that are beyond one borders, but protesting while the family are in mourning is poor taste and disrespectful IMHO.

 

[DrPizza]

Mmmm... I don't think so.

Disruptive behavior is regulated, but that's not the same as a right to the absence.

It's like how double parking is an infraction, but nowhere does it say that you have the inalienable right to be free of double-parked cars. If someone double-parks they're violating traffic statutes, not your civil rights.

So it's actually an expression of the right to vote.

You're right. It still remains though that disruptive behavior in public spaces can be regulated. Westboro Baptists wouldn't be allowed to protest inside a public library where people were trying to concentrate. Likewise, I have no problem keeping them away from funerals. That doesn't stop them from protesting at all; it merely places them elsewhere.