• 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!

Is protesting at funerals 'free speech'?

Is protesting at funerals 'Free Speech'?


  • Total voters
    45
I had a friend all of a sudden bust out one day how religious she was and that the jokes we were making made it a certainty that we were going to hell. I clarified, and she said not just hell, but we would burn in the depths of hell and that demons would torture us for eternity. It was funny. I was struck at how stupid that sounded and have never changed my thought.

Just make sure you save a spot for me.
 
I support protesting at funerals. However, I also support the right for family and friends to bury and remember their dead in peace. What I think should be done is implement a decibel limit for how loud protesters can protest outside of funerals. You can ignore them while they protest without having the funeral be audibly disturbed. Specifically about the Westboro church group, they have their right to protest outside of soldiers funerals, but we also have the right to protest at Phelp's funeral when he dies and begins his rotting in hell :)
 
I support protesting at funerals. However, I also support the right for family and friends to bury and remember their dead in peace. What I think should be done is implement a decibel limit for how loud protesters can protest outside of funerals. You can ignore them while they protest without having the funeral be audibly disturbed. Specifically about the Westboro church group, they have their right to protest outside of soldiers funerals, but we also have the right to protest at Phelp's funeral when he dies and begins his rotting in hell :)

So, even if Phelps has 'accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior', he is doomed to Hell?
 
So, even if Phelps has 'accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior', he is doomed to Hell?

He may proclaim that he has accepted Jesus, but the man doesn't show any of Jesus' Love and casts judgement on everyone. He's a hypocrite in my opinion. The Bible says that many who say they are Christian will be sent to hell because they really hadn't repented and accepted Christ.
 
He may proclaim that he has accepted Jesus, but the man doesn't show any of Jesus' Love and casts judgement on everyone. He's a hypocrite in my opinion. The Bible says that many who say they are Christian will be sent to hell because they really hadn't repented and accepted Christ.

I know many Christians who fall short. Where is the line in the sand? What differentiates Phelps from an ordinary judgmental churchgoer, except that he is very vocal and extreme? Maybe he's mentally ill.

Who are we to say who might be going to Hell?
 
I know many Christians who fall short. Where is the line in the sand? What differentiates Phelps from an ordinary judgmental churchgoer, except that he is very vocal and extreme? Maybe he's mentally ill.

Who are we to say who might be going to Hell?


Actually you have a point. It isn't for us to say, and it is a bit presumptuous for anyone to do so.


Generally the most I will ever say about someone who professes Jesus but doesn't seem to live it, is something like: "If he has the grace of God in him... he ought to let it out for a walk once in a while!" :mrgreen:
 
Financial loss, physical injuries, etc.
These things -can- be measured -- and, if you wanted to, you could create a
'unit' from those measurements, describing equivelancies among them.

Words that have the potential of causing financial loss would not be considered fighting words. And what is measured is financial loss, not harm. A billionaire who loses $20K in profit has lost more than a person who makes an average $50,000 if they lose $10K. The latter person has, more than likely, received more "harm" from their losses, but the former has had greater measurable losses.

Conversely, a person who makes $65K a year and has three kids that loses 10K is probably going to suffer more harm than a bachelor with no kids who makes $60K a year and loses that very same 10K. teh difference in harm would be documentable, but not measurable.

Physical injuries simply cannot be measured. Only described and documented. Measurements can only relate to values. To show that there can not be a value placed on physical "harm", I offer the following:

What's the difference in value between the loss of the left foot and the loss of a left hand?

Now, after you've thought about that in a general sense, what's the difference in value between teh loss of the left foot and the loss of left hand for a professional musician, say a concert pianist at the start of their career?

Clearly, for said musician, the harm done by the loss of a left hand is going to be greater than that of the loss of the left foot. Whereas a professional soccer player would be harmed more from the loss of the left foot, as losing his hand would have little to no effect on his livelihood.

Do we consider the harm received from losing one's left hand equal to that of losing the right? If so, does that mean a right-handed person has been harmed just as much as he would have been if he lost his left hand? Or do we measure harm in this situation by handed-ness?

Is so, what about losing a finger on the left hand versus losing a finger on the right one? Would that still be based on handedness, or would it be equal? Is a pinky worth the same value as an index finger? Would a right-handed guitar player get more "harm points" if he lost a finger on his left hand as opposed to his right?

What I'm trying to show is that harm, the actual damage one receives overall, is simply not a legitimately measurable construct.

Harm is a relative factor, though, it is just not a subjective one. You can document and describe the damage that comes from something harmful, and this degree of harm inflicted will be clear to an objective observer.

i.e. For a professional musician, going deaf is more harmful than going blind would be. We can't place a value on one over the other without knowing more details about the person being harmed.
 
Words that have the potential of causing financial loss would not be considered fighting words. And what is measured is financial loss, not harm. A billionaire who loses $20K in profit has lost more than a person who makes an average $50,000 if they lose $10K. The latter person has, more than likely, received more "harm" from their losses, but the former has had greater measurable losses.

Conversely, a person who makes $65K a year and has three kids that loses 10K is probably going to suffer more harm than a bachelor with no kids who makes $60K a year and loses that very same 10K. teh difference in harm would be documentable, but not measurable.

Physical injuries simply cannot be measured. Only described and documented. Measurements can only relate to values. To show that there can not be a value placed on physical "harm", I offer the following:

What's the difference in value between the loss of the left foot and the loss of a left hand?

Now, after you've thought about that in a general sense, what's the difference in value between teh loss of the left foot and the loss of left hand for a professional musician, say a concert pianist at the start of their career?

Clearly, for said musician, the harm done by the loss of a left hand is going to be greater than that of the loss of the left foot. Whereas a professional soccer player would be harmed more from the loss of the left foot, as losing his hand would have little to no effect on his livelihood.

Do we consider the harm received from losing one's left hand equal to that of losing the right? If so, does that mean a right-handed person has been harmed just as much as he would have been if he lost his left hand? Or do we measure harm in this situation by handed-ness?

Is so, what about losing a finger on the left hand versus losing a finger on the right one? Would that still be based on handedness, or would it be equal? Is a pinky worth the same value as an index finger? Would a right-handed guitar player get more "harm points" if he lost a finger on his left hand as opposed to his right?

What I'm trying to show is that harm, the actual damage one receives overall, is simply not a legitimately measurable construct.

Harm is a relative factor, though, it is just not a subjective one. You can document and describe the damage that comes from something harmful, and this degree of harm inflicted will be clear to an objective observer.

i.e. For a professional musician, going deaf is more harmful than going blind would be. We can't place a value on one over the other without knowing more details about the person being harmed.

Nothing about my counter argument?
 
I was lazy. There were some posts that all looked like that topic when I super freaky style skimmed it, sue me.

Under NH.'s Offensive Conduct law (chap. 378, para. 2 of the NH. Public Laws) it is illegal for anyone to address another person with "any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place...or to call him by an offensive or derisive name."

What person is the religious protestor addressing? Dead soldiers? Like I said, not relevant. Not even the point.

Read Brandenburg v. Ohio to see how and why I made my decision. I think that you will find post Chaplinsky decisions interesting and understand that perhaps I have some tools that increase my knowledge to a level that you don't fully appreciate and that display that I am fully equipped.

Is it this one?

I'm not sure how Brandenburg v. Ohio relates to my argument in the least. That ruling was about the advocacy of violence, and how that is different from incitement.

My argument is actually about the words which, "by their very utterance" in certain circumstances "inflict injury." and how they should be prevented from being uttered in said circumstances.

an important ruling would be cohen v California which states that fighting words are those "which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction."

Standing outside of a funeral with a sign telling people that their son is going to hell is indeed inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.
 
Last edited:
Is it this one?

I'm not sure how Brandenburg v. Ohio relates to my argument in the least. That ruling was about the advocacy of violence, and how that is different from incitement.

My argument is actually about the words which, "by their very utterance" in certain circumstances "inflict injury." and how they should be prevented from being uttered in said circumstances.

an important ruling would be cohen v California which states that fighting words are those "which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction."

Standing outside of a funeral with a sign telling people that their son is going to hell is indeed inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.

Don't worry, I figured as much. :2razz:

Fair enough. But is "by there very utterance inflict injury" a little vague? Depending on the sensitivity of the "victim", almost anything could apply. That is why the Court has systematically been narrowing the definition since the Chaplinsky decision. The religious guy was not standing the funeral telling them that their son was going to hell. He was away. The dad did not even know about it until after the funeral when he saw it on the news.

In Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

Held: The ordinance, as thus construed, is susceptible of application to protected speech, and therefore is overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and facially invalid.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=415&invol=130

"Inflict injury" was the first step. Many have been taken since that narrow these broad terms into more reasonable and specific ones. And thank god for that.
 
Last edited:
The reputation left from that person could be damaged, along with his family members. Plus it still falls under fighting words.

Reputation = what somebody is known for.

So therefore it can be damaged even after they are deceased.
A corpse does not have a reputation to harm. Even if it did, how would you measure it? Loss of employment opportunities? Therapy bills?
 
A corpse does not have a reputation to harm. Even if it did, how would you measure it? Loss of employment opportunities? Therapy bills?

Bro, my Dad died about five years ago. If there had been someone at his funeral badmouthing him and slandering his reputation, that individual would have been fortunate to depart with the same number of teeth with which he arrived. The fact that my father was no longer around to suffer harm for slander on his reputation notwithstanding, the family suffers great trauma when the newly-departed is dissed in this manner.

I know an appeal to "common decency" may not be the most logically substantiated argument to make... but damn it, "common decency" does say that you don't insult a dead man in front of his grieving family at his damn funeral!

Pardon. This whole biz just gets my goat.
 
If there is one thing that has always confused me, it is people that get so ****ing pissy when other people badmouth them, their friends or their family. WTF is wrong with people. Who the hell cares what some jackass says? Whatever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me? And then to get so pissy about it that you got to go and fight over it? Gay beyond comprehension.

If somebody says that they are going to kill your kid, fine. **** em up. But if some guy badmouths some awesome loved one that I respect, I would start ridiculing them about being so pathetic. They can start something, but to go out and start a fight over that, lame.
 
Last edited:
If there is one thing that has always confused me, it is people that get so ****ing pissy when other people badmouth them, their friends or their family. WTF is wrong with people. Who the hell cares what some jackass says? Whatever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me? And then to get so pissy about it that you got to go and fight over it? Gay beyond comprehension.

If somebody says that they are going to kill your kid, fine. **** em up. But if some guy badmouths some awesome loved one that I respect, I would start ridiculing them about being so pathetic. They can start something, but to go out and start a fight over that, lame.


You and I apparently come from different cultures, or perhaps different eras, my friend.

When I was young, and even more so when my father was young, a man's reputation was important. Your good name meant something, and it meant something to your neighbors. Allowing someone to slander your good name and get away with it was viewed as weakness, and often made people wonder if the reason you didn't defend your honor was because there was something to the accusations that were being made.

Those who run their mouths too much are subject to having them shut the hard way. This still holds true in many places and many strata of society.

If someone was slandering my father at his funeral, and I stood there at let this moonbat talk junk while my just-now-widowed mother had to listen to it, and I didn't shut him up or get rid of him one way or another.... I'd never be able to look in a mirror again.
 
Last edited:
You and I apparently come from different cultures, or perhaps different eras, my friend.

When I was young, and even more so when my father was young, a man's reputation was important. Your good name meant something, and it meant something to your neighbors. Allowing someone to slander your good name and get away with it was viewed as weakness, and often made people wonder if the reason you didn't defend your honor was because there was something to the accusations that were being made.

Those who run their mouths too much are subject to having them shut the hard way. This still holds true in many places and many strata of society.

A man's reputation is important. But fighting over it just doesn't cut it. Atticus Finch represented an average man with honor and respect, but did he fight? No. Hell, there are guys that if you look at them wrong will fight, but does that equal honor or good reputation? Depends. I think it doesn't ever. That's just me.

If a person comes from an area where their neighbors and townspeople are so shallow that they will think poorly of a good man just because he doesn't fight, well, **** those losers is all I gotta say, that person should move away. What moronic tools. Let them live their little fantasies of honor if they like. Personally, I would move and let them think what they want to.
 
A man's reputation is important. But fighting over it just doesn't cut it. Atticus Finch represented an average man with honor and respect, but did he fight? No. Hell, there are guys that if you look at them wrong will fight, but does that equal honor or good reputation? Depends. I think it doesn't ever. That's just me.

If a person comes from an area where their neighbors and townspeople are so shallow that they will think poorly of a good man just because he doesn't fight, well, **** those losers is all I gotta say, that person should move away. What moronic tools. Let them live their little fantasies of honor if they like. Personally, I would move and let them think what they want to.


As I say, we come from different times or different cultures.

There are some things that just flat-out call for a punch in the mouth. There are times when it is appropriate and reasonable, and it just might help the loud-mouth avoid future embarassment. Nothing spells "remember this" like p.a.i.n.

I'm not talking about punching every moron that says something stupid. That would be a full-time job. :mrgreen: But there are some things that are just beyond being tolerated, and this is one of them.
 
As I say, we come from different times or different cultures.

There are some things that just flat-out call for a punch in the mouth. There are times when it is appropriate and reasonable, and it just might help the loud-mouth avoid future embarassment. Nothing spells "remember this" like p.a.i.n.

I'm not talking about punching every moron that says something stupid. That would be a full-time job. :mrgreen: But there are some things that are just beyond being tolerated, and this is one of them.

I couldn't agree more. Just wanted to say that.
 
As I say, we come from different times or different cultures.

There are some things that just flat-out call for a punch in the mouth. There are times when it is appropriate and reasonable, and it just might help the loud-mouth avoid future embarassment. Nothing spells "remember this" like p.a.i.n.

I'm not talking about punching every moron that says something stupid. That would be a full-time job. :mrgreen: But there are some things that are just beyond being tolerated, and this is one of them.

I understand you, and have lived around, not areas, but people like that, and I am not judging anybody. I am a classic waste of breath myself. I hear you too. Some things do. I agree. For me, the reason would have to be pretty severe.

Could you imagine busting into a fight every time some dork mouthed off? You're right. It would be a full time job. :lol:
 
Bro, my Dad died about five years ago. If there had been someone at his funeral badmouthing him and slandering his reputation, that individual would have been fortunate to depart with the same number of teeth with which he arrived. The fact that my father was no longer around to suffer harm for slander on his reputation notwithstanding, the family suffers great trauma when the newly-departed is dissed in this manner.

I know an appeal to "common decency" may not be the most logically substantiated argument to make... but damn it, "common decency" does say that you don't insult a dead man in front of his grieving family at his damn funeral!

Pardon. This whole biz just gets my goat.
I hear where you're coming from. We buried my paternal grandfather last summer. Although I can't imagine any reason a person would want to drive ten miles past the boondocks to protest at the grave of an 86-year-old WW2 vet, if for some reason a person did, the thin veneer of civility would have evaporated immediately and they'd have been walking into a down-home Bald Knobber asswhuppin', and that's all there is to it. I'm certainly not saying it is in any way decent or right to protest at a person's funeral. What the Phelps clan does is deplorable, and I wouldn't feel the least bit of sympathy for any of them if they were all to be run over by a semi at their next event.
 
I hear where you're coming from. We buried my paternal grandfather last summer. Although I can't imagine any reason a person would want to drive ten miles past the boondocks to protest at the grave of an 86-year-old WW2 vet, if for some reason a person did, the thin veneer of civility would have evaporated immediately and they'd have been walking into a down-home Bald Knobber asswhuppin', and that's all there is to it. I'm certainly not saying it is in any way decent or right to protest at a person's funeral. What the Phelps clan does is deplorable, and I wouldn't feel the least bit of sympathy for any of them if they were all to be run over by a semi at their next event.

Right. Some old Italien guy happens to talk some smack about American Forces as he is fishing in hickville and you're just gonna beat the **** out of him. All this bravado is pretty damn silly. Too many childish men out there that need to mature a bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom