• 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
But to me, what the Phelps' are doing is trying to pick fights and get publicity, not to mention money from lawsuits when they actually are able to get someone to attack them. There is no legitimate purpose for them to be protesting anybody's funeral.

I do not support limits on free speech in principle, EVER, and most specifically not when the Democrats are in control of Congress and the White House.
 
Free speech is free speech. Within the limits I described above, government should not be constraining it, no matter how challenging that is for us as individuals.

I actually see this as a way of softening us up to more easily accept hate speech legislation in the future, just like Canada and the UK have done. After all, no one can condone Phelps's tactics. He's universally despised. Make him the scapegoat, and you get the support of most of the sheep who don't think very hard.

I actually prefer the way this case is done to making laws against the actual protesting. This was a civil suit, and to me, is not much different that a libel suit, it's just not a situation that has come up before.

I personally can't see this case opening the doors to all kinds of suits that actually would violate free speech, just because it is such a special case.
 
But to me, what the Phelps' are doing is trying to pick fights and get publicity, not to mention money from lawsuits when they actually are able to get someone to attack them.

See, I'm in favor of criminal ramifications for beating Phelp's ass, but there's no way I'd rule in favor of them getting money from it if I was on a jury.

Personally, if it was someone I cared about that the were doing this to, I'd beat one of their asses, accept the criminal liability, and make a helluva case for being incited to violence in the civil trial to avoid having to pay those ****ers a dime.

But I'd happily serve a few months in county for beating one of their asses if it was my loved one they did this to.
 
See, I'm in favor of criminal ramifications for beating Phelp's ass, but there's no way I'd rule in favor of them getting money from it if I was on a jury.

Personally, if it was someone I cared about that the were doing this to, I'd beat one of their asses, accept the criminal liability, and make a helluva case for being incited to violence in the civil trial to avoid having to pay those ****ers a dime.

But I'd happily serve a few months in county for beating one of their asses if it was my loved one they did this to.

This is how most of my family feels too. I have no doubt that if it were a family member of mine whose funeral they were at, at least one, if not many, of my relatives, would be kicking some butts. I don't disagree with this sentiment, except that I don't want them making money off of my family when they shouldn't have been there to begin with.
 
The Fred Phelps lunatics protest here in Kansas City more often than anywhere else. I saw some of them down on the plaza protesting gays, fornicators, and modernity in general while I was out running on Sunday. Basically, if you took the religious right to its most extreme (to the point where Pat Robertson looks reasonable), you get the Fred Phelps bunch.

This is what I don't get. You have these psychopaths that go into where they work, schools, and various public places and shoot everyone they see before taking themselves out..... why do none of these psychopaths ever consider actually doing the world a favor and taking out the Phelps bunch? The fact that bunch of hate-mongering lunatics has managed to make it this long unharmed amazes me.
 
The unfortunate side effect of having rights is that sometimes people use those rights to be assholes. It is still better than not having the rights.
 
I'm all for freedom of speech. But I think funerals should be somewhat excepted. People cannot always choose where they will bury their loved one(s). I understand if protesters are standing on public property, but if the burial plot is right next to the sidewalk, I really think something should be done to protect a group of people from one of the most difficult things they may have to go through in their lives.

I don't really know if the law is the way to go, but I definitely think supporting groups like these guys IS. Home
 
Threatening to kill someone is illegal right?

What if you threaten the person in the casket at a funeral?
 
Threatening to kill someone is illegal right?

What if you threaten the person in the casket at a funeral?
There is no person in the casket, only a corpse, which is an object. Since it is impossible to threaten an object, there is no crime.
 
Yes it is. They are on public property, they have the right to assemble, associate, and protest.
Disagree vehemently!
With "free" speech, responsibility and respect are a must.
At a man's funeral, any protest is out or order.
There can never be unlimited rights for anything.
Man has had to fight for centuries for his rights, this would not be necessary but for those men who have no respect for others.
 
Disagree vehemently!
With "free" speech, responsibility and respect are a must.
At a man's funeral, any protest is out or order.
There can never be unlimited rights for anything.
Man has had to fight for centuries for his rights, this would not be necessary but for those men who have no respect for others.

While freedom does come with many consequences and responsibilities, it does not entail curtailing the freedom of others because we don't happen to like what is said. Protest, assembly, and association must be upheld; there are necessities for these things. The rights of the funeral goers were not infringed upon by a protest across the street. And while it may be disrespectful, there's no law saying you have to be respectful. It's time that people man up and get some thick skin. People will always stay stupid, ignorant things since there will always be people in a society who are stupid and ignorant. That's that. If we believe in freedom and liberty, then we must accept that the stupid and ignorant will run their mouths from time to time and that's the end of it.
 
I just don't know.

On the one hand, I support unfettered free speech, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. (ie shouting fire in a crowded theater, libel and slander.)

OTOH, doesn't a grieving family have a right to a respectful funeral? I've put a lot of people I loved in the ground... if some A-hole like the Phelps had been waving their signs across the street, I probably would have gone to prison, because I probably would have reacted badly.

Isn't this kind of crap infringing on the family's right to bury a loved one in peace?
 
There is no person in the casket, only a corpse, which is an object. Since it is impossible to threaten an object, there is no crime.

joke
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
 
Protesting Military funerals is harassment and slanderous - considering that all protests of this nature toss around slanderous statements concerning the deceased. . . and slander is NOT protected under the Constitution - it is unlawful and those in violation should be held accountable.

I don't care if people want to protest the government or military action, but taking advantage of a fallen soldier (or politician, etc) to do so is unacceptable.

It's quite pathetic that so many people in this country fail to see the line and respect the line and not cross it.
 
As much as I'd like to punch Fred Phelps in the face, as lon as they aren't disrupting the service than it is.

It's like the old saying.

"I do not agree with what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it"
 
It's quite pathetic that so many people in this country fail to see the line and respect the line and not cross it.

It's not that people do not see the error in the ways of this church, or are not sickened by it. However, some have chosen to accept the consequences of freedom and push to preserve the lot. Even for those who say things they disagree with.
 
Protesting at funerals is propbably covered as "free speech" yet it is reprehensible and disgusting and morally corrupt and only engaged by the lowest forms of life such as bacteria and Communists, real Comminists.
 
joke
n.
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
Sorry. :3oops:
 
While freedom does come with many consequences and responsibilities, it does not entail curtailing the freedom of others because we don't happen to like what is said. Protest, assembly, and association must be upheld; there are necessities for these things. The rights of the funeral goers were not infringed upon by a protest across the street. And while it may be disrespectful, there's no law saying you have to be respectful. It's time that people man up and get some thick skin. People will always stay stupid, ignorant things since there will always be people in a society who are stupid and ignorant. That's that. If we believe in freedom and liberty, then we must accept that the stupid and ignorant will run their mouths from time to time and that's the end of it.

Quoted for truth. Sometimes, it's hard having rights. It beats the alternative. You do not have a right to be protected from being offended.
 
This is what I don't get. You have these psychopaths that go into where they work, schools, and various public places and shoot everyone they see before taking themselves out..... why do none of these psychopaths ever consider actually doing the world a favor and taking out the Phelps bunch? The fact that bunch of hate-mongering lunatics has managed to make it this long unharmed amazes me.
You're promoting the idea that people whose speech offends you should be killed...

I don't even know how to respond to it.
 
It may be free speech, but it's a disgusting practice imo.
 
Threatening to kill someone is illegal right?
Not directly, Although those words can be used as evidence by the investigating officers if said person is murdered and if the threat is percieved as legitimate then assualt charges can be filed, but the actual utterance is not illegal independent of context.
 
Last edited:
Rachel Maddow was talking about very similar themes on The Daily Show just now.

Very interesting.
 
Originally Posted by Cilogy
Threatening to kill someone is illegal right?

Depends on the state and person. Threatening to kill the President of the United States is punishable to up to five years in prison.
 
Back
Top Bottom