• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro

Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

I'm wondering if the SCOTUS won't strike this down. They've already ruled in favor of WBC once on the premise of free speech. Then again, limiting the time and place of protest has been done on a case-by-case basis in other areas.

Indeed, this seems like a perfectly reasonable time/place/manner restriction, which is entirely constitutional. Protesters aren't being stopped from espousing their views, nor from expressing them. Just not right there, right then, and in that exact way. I think this would pass constitutional muster without much trouble.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

There is a time and a place for everything, and at a funeral is no time for a protest. There can be limits on free speech, just like limits on private gun ownership. You can't own a machine gun without a permit, that's been the law since the 1930's (to stop Bonnie and Clyde outlaws), and its a good law IMO. I applaud congress on this.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

I would picket westboro funerals...but honestly they are such a miniscule version...and not worth me losing touch with Christ over.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

No, sorry Westboro

Being a d-bag is NOT your constitutional right

Seriously? Why does anyone have a problem with this? Ooohhh it's "unconstitutional"!

You don't have the right to cause other people emotional trauma, and that's that.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

So awesome to see people piss on the Bill of Rights.

You either believe in freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, or you don't. Congress is explicitly forbidden from doing this in plain English in the document that justifies the existence of a Congress.

Free speech rights aren't there for popular speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

So awesome to see people piss on the Bill of Rights.

Funny - I see your attitude to be the equivalent.

Your view enables people to be hurt and slandered for something they have not done wrong. My view does not. Unless you think telling them to 'move along - just a little bit' is going to hurt them somehow...

You either believe in freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, or you don't. Congress is explicitly forbidden from doing this in plain English in the document that justifies the existence of a Congress.

Exactly - so as I see it: you don't...

Free speech rights aren't there for popular speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection.

Apparently there's a fine line between undue harassment, slander - and free speech.

But we're not saying "no - you cannot SAY that" . . . we're saying "you can SAY that . . . just get the **** away from me."
 
Last edited:
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Funny - I see your attitude to be the equivalent.

You see my attitude as pissing on the Bill of Rights? No you don't. That doesn't make sense.

Your view enables people to be hurt and slandered

Other people have a right to free speech. We do not have a right to not be offended by other people's speech. Other people have a right to peaceably assemble on public property.

Exactly - so as I see it: you don't...

There is no way in which this response of yours makes one damn lick of sense.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

You see my attitude as pissing on the Bill of Rights? No you don't. That doesn't make sense.



Other people have a right to free speech. We do not have a right to not be offended by other people's speech. Other people have a right to peaceably assemble on public property.



There is no way in which this response of yours makes one damn lick of sense.

You don't get it: no one is saying "you are not allowed to SAY that" . . . they just want some distance and peace at a funeral.

Why is that so egregious to you?

Why is this unacceptable and distasteful to you?

Why is the desire to slander and offend more important to you than the desire to honor an ancient tradition and say some final goodbyes with some measure of love and dignity without the family suffering more than they already have for the the choices their deceased loved one made?

How is that protestable, by the way? Protesting someone's right to join the military - and sacrifice their lives for something they believed was right - and that's something to protest?

I think it's vile and sick. . . you obviously think it's great and encourageable. I at least believe they should be out of sight.

I don't think they have anything TO be protesting - protesting the dead . . . by calling them faggots and saying god wanted them dead? How is that worth a **** to protect?

I think it's beyond F'd up - this newage stoked idea that 'you can say and do whatever you want as long as you call it a protest' :roll:
 
Last edited:
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

I have mixed emotions on this.

I am absolutely for freedom of speech but it seems there are already restrictions on it. There are plenty of things you could say at the wrong place, time, or to/about the wrong person that could cost you an investigation and/or jail time.

I see no merit to our society for what the WBC does. Protesting at funerals seems more designed to encite violence, or harass someone who is already going through a great deal. The people at that funeral are not going to pass laws that affect WBC in any way. Why aren't they protesting Washington, where someone actually has the power and ability to address their grievances.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

I'm wondering if the SCOTUS won't strike this down. They've already ruled in favor of WBC once on the premise of free speech. Then again, limiting the time and place of protest has been done on a case-by-case basis in other areas.


I hope scotus does not...I am amazed quite frankly that a grieving military family member hasnt opened up with an assault rifle on the WBC scum....I believe eventually its inevitable something bad is going to happen.
Free speech has to have its limits...along with where you can protest...you get a nam vet who feels hes got nothing to lose...ive been expecting it to be honest
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Oh goody, the Phelps in the US Supreme Court building, what a great society.

And why does the military get special treatment? There should be restrictions for any funeral.
 
Last edited:
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

I am retired military and spent 7 years in the middle east. I grew up in a navy family and have spent the last 9 years working with the Dept of the Army. Ive been to more than a few military funerals. I despise the WBC but am not in favor of this type of legislation. I think as long as they follow the laws of the land with regard to protesting they the same rights as the OWS morons. As long as they follow the laws.

I think it is inspirational when members of the community enact their own form of protest...against the WBC and in support of the families. Images from such events are far more powerful testimonials to our ability as a people than banning the WBC rights to protest.
Slide Show: Army Spc. Sterling Wyatt's Funeral - ColumbiaTribune.com
6755c92f23c4962aa275c780d5a5c961.jpg
94361b6d97e8feffc9dedb1fb0f61a82.jpg
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

Several thoughts about this.
1.)I can see where they are coming from on this and i dislike Westboro just as much as the next person
2.)But doesnt this block first amendment rights?
Does it make me a bad person for worrying about their rights?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

It does infringe on our free speech rights. But it's really nothing new from what's gone on in the past 12 years.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

I have a feeling you wouldn't take it so lightly if it was directed at you.

Just like I'm sure if you're ability so speak on a subject was limited by the government to only being able occur at certain time and places that you'd not take it so lightly

Due to the safety of politicians, no person can protest 2 hours before or after a politician's speech or rally

Now personally, I'd like to know what the constitutional standard for something like this. For example, in a recent court case dealing with a state run entity using a church for a state activity, the court explained constitutional standard was to view each case as a unique individual entity ruling based tightly around those given facts. In that particular case, something like this being rule constitutional would not deem that the government has a carte blanche right to determine restrictions on time/place/distance but rather that in the very narrow circumstance of protests regarding military funerals the government has such ability. If the constitutional standard for judging this is that narrow, then I'd have less issue. But if it is broader and sets forth a precedence of allowing the government more power to limit speech based on time/place/distance in a broader way, I'd say it's a bad action.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Just like I'm sure if you're ability so speak on a subject was limited by the government to only being able occur at certain time and places that you'd not take it so lightly



Now personally, I'd like to know what the constitutional standard for something like this. For example, in a recent court case dealing with a state run entity using a church for a state activity, the court explained constitutional standard was to view each case as a unique individual entity ruling based tightly around those given facts. In that particular case, something like this being rule constitutional would not deem that the government has a carte blanche right to determine restrictions on time/place/distance but rather that in the very narrow circumstance of protests regarding military funerals the government has such ability. If the constitutional standard for judging this is that narrow, then I'd have less issue. But if it is broader and sets forth a precedence of allowing the government more power to limit speech based on time/place/distance in a broader way, I'd say it's a bad action.

Forget the nuance.

The Supreme Court will rule the limitations constitutional because free speech and protest is already limited because of the policy of "free speech zones" that was instituted during the GWB administration.

So if the federal government can limit protests to certain areas based on security then the federal government can also limit the timing of protests based on security as well.

I love the smell of incrementalization in the morning...
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Forget the nuance.

The Supreme Court will rule the limitations constitutional because free speech and protest is already limited because of the policy of "free speech zones" that was instituted during the GWB administration.

So if the federal government can limit protests to certain areas based on security then the federal government can also limit the timing of protests based on security as well.

I love the smell of incrementalization in the morning...

Thanks Sam, even if you did beat me to it.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

Several thoughts about this.
1.)I can see where they are coming from on this and i dislike Westboro just as much as the next person
2.)But doesnt this block first amendment rights?
Does it make me a bad person for worrying about their rights?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

I think it will be overturned by the Supreme Court as similar laws have both at the circuit and supreme courts. I'm a free speech absolutist so I sympathize with your worries.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

The distance limit is probably constitutional, but what does it mean that you can't picket 2 hours before or after? Does it mean that if there's a funeral in Arkansas that I can't protest it in Florida while it's going on?

And a quibble with something said earlier about free speech zones. the Bush administration may have created the term, but it has always been true that protesters can be prevented from disrupting events.
 
Last edited:
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

It does infringe on our free speech rights. But it's really nothing new from what's gone on in the past 12 years.

Does slander and libel infringe on our free speech rights? Just playing devil's advocate, a little.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Does slander and libel infringe on our free speech rights? Just playing devil's advocate, a little.

They do substantial harm. That harm is actionable. As far as I know, there can be no prior restraint on libel or slander. You can say it, or publish it, and then you get sued for harming someone.

Hurting someone's feelings isn't considered substantial harm. Ruining someone's reputation is.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

They do substantial harm. That harm is actionable. As far as I know, there can be no prior restraint on libel or slander. You can say it, or publish it, and then you get sued for harming someone.

Hurting someone's feelings isn't considered substantial harm. Ruining someone's reputation is.

Also, the case could be made that none of what the Westboro Baptist Church does is considered libelous or slanderous since what they are doing is a protest against the United States government rather than against private individuals.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Also, is libel or slander actually against the law, or just something you can sue someone for since it causes you damage? As far as I know, the government doesn't indict people for libel or slander.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

And this thought process explains how our country veered off track: favoring forms of harassment as a right over the right to not be harassed.

When did this shift? 1960's?

There is no Constitutional right not to be harassed. There is a Constitutional right to free speech. Like it or not, these people have every legal, Constitutional right to protest when and where they want. People also have every legal, Constitutional right to protest them. Have a much, much larger, more vocal group show up protesting against the WBC.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westboro Baptist Church

Several thoughts about this.
1.)I can see where they are coming from on this and i dislike Westboro just as much as the next person
2.)But doesnt this block first amendment rights?
Does it make me a bad person for worrying about their rights?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?

Good to see Congress finally do something right, but the liberals at Westboro won't like it one bit.
 
Re: Congress Passes Restrictions On Military Funeral Protests, Delivers Blow To Westb

Also, is libel or slander actually against the law, or just something you can sue someone for since it causes you damage? As far as I know, the government doesn't indict people for libel or slander.

It has to be proven to be done maliciously and with intent of defaming an individual to the point of undoing their career or lifestyle - lies can have rather nasty repercussions that can destroy an individual beyond the point of repair.

It must be documented and PROVEN that the individual committing the offense INTENDED for serious harm to come.

So - it doesn't happen all the time, little lies and made up stories aren't necessarily lawsuit material in the making, but people can and do sue for true cases of libel and slander.
 
Back
Top Bottom